(^.  Z  3/^2^ 


from  t^e  feifirarg  of 
(profeBBor  nTiffiam  ^enrj?  (Breen 

f^e  feifitart  of 
^xincdon  C^eofogtcaf  ^eminarj 


pX  9175    .A5   1851 
Alexander,  Joseph  A.   1809- 

I860. 
Essays  on  the  primitive 
LcJiiirclLj3fjfice5 


IIBRARY  OF  PRINCETON 


FEB  -  7  2005 


THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


n?'l 


PRIMITIVE  CHURCH  OFEICES, 


lIBRARy  OF  PRINCETON 
I 

FEB  -  7  2005 


THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


ESSAYS 


PEIMITIVE  CHURCH  OFFICES. 

by 


aEPEINTED     BY     PERMISSION     FROM    THE     PRINCETON     REVIEW,     AVITH 
COEEECTIONS    AND    ADDITIONS    BY    THE    SAME    WRITER. 


NEW-YORK: 
CHARLES   SCRIBNER,   145   NASSAU-STREET. 

1851. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1851,  by 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Southern  District  of 
New-Yorls. 


-/'^O  JOHN    P.  TROW.  C7>V 

^    Printtr  anir  .Sttreotsptr,    ]>c 

\„y^  49  Ann-Street.  C^^^^ 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


The  essays  here  collected  were  originally  pub- 
lished in  different  numbers  of  the  Biblical  Reper- 
tory and  Princeton  Review  during  a  period  of  seve- 
ral years.  A  desire  having  been  expressed  for  their 
republication  in  a  separate  form,  the  author  has  not 
only  given  his  consent,  but  made  a  number  of  cor- 
rections, chiefly  verbal,  and  two  additions  of  con- 
siderable length,  to  wit,  the  whole  of  the  fifth  essay 
and  the  conclusion  of  the  fourth,  comprising  the 
argument  in  reference  to  the  apostleship  of  Titus. 
Both  these  additions  formed  a  part  of  the  original 
manuscript,  from  which  the  essays  were  transferred 
to  the  Review,  and  are  necessary  to  complete  the 
argument.  An  occasional  want  of  uniformity  in  the 
use  of  the  singular  and  plural  pronoun  has  arisen 
from  a  partial  restoration  of  the  original  form,  which 
was  afterwards  abandoned,  as  a  superfluous  labour 
in  a  mere  republication. 


CONTENTS. 


ESSAY  I. 

On  the  Origin  of  the  Christian  Eldership,         .        .  1 

ESSAY  n. 
On  the  Powers  of  the  Primitive  Presbyters,      ...        29 

ESSAY  m. 

On  the  Perpetuity  op  the  Apostleship,   ....   68 

ESSAY  rv. 

On  the  Official  Rank  of  Timothy  and  Titus,     .        .        .      101 

ESSAY  V. 
On  the  Angels  of  the  Churches  and  the  False  Apostles,      134 

ESSAY  VI. 
On  the  Apostolical  Succession, 144 


ESSAY    I. 


ON  THE   ORIGIISr   OF   THE   CHRISTIAN   ELDERSHIP. 

In  various  living  languages  there  are  titles  of  honour 
and  respect,  the  etymological  origin  of  which  is  to 
be  sought  in  the  idea  of  old  age  or  seniority.  Such 
are  Sire,  as  addressed  to  kings,  and  the  cognate  ex- 
pression Sir,  as  used  in  common  parlance,  and  also  in 
the  title  of  an  English  knight  or  baronet.  Such  too 
are  the  French  Sieur,  Seigneur,  the  Spanish  Senor,  the 
Italian  Signore,  with  their  various  compounds.  Mon- 
sieur, Monseigneur,  Monsignore,  Messire,  etc.,  all  which 
may  be  traced  back  to  the  Latin  Senior,  considered  as 
tho  comparative  of  Senex.  We  find,  moreover,  that 
terms  thus  derived  have  been  extensively  employed, 
not  only  as  expressions  of  personal  respect,  but  also  as 
designations  of  official  dignity.  This  is  the  case  Avith 
most  of  the  words  already  mentioned,  to  which  may 
be  added  Alderman  (elder  man),  Senator,  Patres  Con- 
scrvpti,  the  Arabic  Sheikh,  and  many  others. 

This  extensive  use  of  words,  which  properly  denote 
1 


Z  ESSAY   T. 

old  age,  to  signify  oflicial  rank,  might  possibly  admit 
of  explanation  on  the  hypothesis,  that  what  was  first 
used  to  express  a  merely  personal  respect  was  after- 
wards employed  to  express  the  same  feeling  with  re- 
spect to  public  or  official  dignity  ;  that  as  any  respected 
person  might  be  called  a  father  or  an  old  man,  so  a 
ruler  or  a  magistrate  might  be  so  called  by  way  of 
eminence.     But  the  usage  now  in  question  may  be 
still  more  satisfactorily  accounted  for,  by  the  fact,  that 
as  we  trace  the  history  of  governments  backwards,  we 
find  them  all  to  terminate  in  the  patriarchal  system. 
It  is  this  which  exists  in  families  among  all  nations. 
It  is  founded  on  the  natural  relation  between  parents 
and  children.     It  has  no  concern  with  artificial  theo- 
ries respecting  social  compacts  and  equality.     Among 
those  races  which  have  retained  most  of  a  primitive 
simplicity  in  their  mode  of  life,  this  organization  of 
society  is  still  found.     As  the  father  governs  his  own 
household,   so  the   head  of  the  family,  i.  e.  of  the 
elder  branch,  governs  the  younger,  and  the  head  of 
the  whole  tribe  governs  both.     This,  system  lingers 
still  among  the  Highland  clans  of  Scotland,  and  con- 
tinues in    full  force   among  the    wandering   Arabs. 
Hence  their  strict  regard  to  genealogy,  which  existed 
also  among  the  ancient  Hebrews. 

Under  all  the  changes  in  the  Hebrew  form  of  gov- 
ernment, this  patriarchal  system  still  remained  as  the 
substratum  of  the  whole  theocracy ;  and  its  peculiar 
phraseology  is  constantly  recurring  in  the  sacred  his- 
tory. As  the  natural  heads  of  houses,  families,  and 
tribes,  were  the  hereditary  magistrates,  the  name  t^'^t^i , 
old  men,  elders,  was  the  common  appellation  for  the 
rulers  of  the  people. 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   ELDERSHIP.  o 

The  same  usage  of  the  term  occurs  in  application  to 
domestic  arrangements.  Eliezer  of  Damascus,  Abra-. 
ham's  steward,  is  called  (Gen.  24  :  2)  in-'s  )p_i  i^ns,  not 
"  his  eldest  servant  of  his  house,"  as  our  translation  has 
it,  but  "his  servant,  the  elder  (i.  e.  ruler)  of  his  house." 
So  in  Gen.  50  :  7,  we  read  of  "  all  the  servants  of  Pha- 
raoh, the  elders  of  his  house,"  as  well  as  "  all  the  elders 
of  the  land  of  Egypt."  These  elders  and  the  senators 
of  Ps.  105 :  22  are  identical  in  Hebrew. 

During  the  residence  of  Israel  in  Egypt,  the  patri- 
archal system  seems  to  have  been  maintained,  as  one 
suited  to  every  change  of  circumstances.  Hence,  when 
the  people  were  to  be  delivered,  the  communications 
from  Jehovah  were  made,  not  directly  to  the  mass  of 
the  nation,  but  to  the  Elders,  as  their  national  and 
acknowledged  representatives.  When  God  command- 
ed Moses  (Ex.  3  :  14),  "  Thus  shalt  thou  say  unto  the 
children  of  Israel,  I  am  hath  sent  me  unto  you,"  he 
immediately  explained  the  way  in  which  the  command 
was  to  be  executed,  by  adding,  "Go  and  gather  the 
ELDERS  of  Israel  together,  and  say  unto  them,"  etc. 
(v.  16),  "  and  thou  shalt  come,  thou  and  the  elders  of 
Israel,  unto  the  king  of  Egypt"  (v.  18).  Again  we  read 
(Ex.  4  :  30,  31),  that  Moses  and  Aaron  "did  the  signs 
in  the  sight  of  the  people,  and  the  people  believed." 
But  immediately  before  it  had  been  said  (v.  29),  that 
they  "  went  and  gathered  together  all  the  elders  of 
the  children  of  Israel,"  which  would  be  a  nugatory 
statement,  if  it  did  not  mean  that  the  people,  who  saw 
the  signs  and  believed  in  consequence,  were  the  elders 
of  the  people. 

In  Ex.  12  :  3,  the  Lord  says  unto  Moses  and  Aaron, 
"Speak  ye  unto  all  the  congregation  of  Israel;"  but  in 


4  ESSAY   I. 

executing  this  command  "  Moses  called  for  all  the  elders 
.of  Israel,"  and  gave  them  the  necessary  orders  (v.  21). 
When  Moses  smote  the  rock  by  divine  direction,  it 
wag  "in  the  sight  of  the  elders  of  Israel"  (Ex.  17  :  5, 
6),  as  the  representatives  of  the  people  who  were  to  be 
relieved,  and  at  the  same  time  reproved  for  murmur- 
ing. When  Jethro  offered  sacrifices  and  made  a  feast, 
"all  the  elders  of  Israel"  came,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
"to  eat  bread  with  Moses'  father-in-law  before  God" 
(Ex.  18 :  12). 

A  still  more  remarkable  instance  of  the  Elders  being 
taken  for  the  people  is  in  Ex.  19  ;  8,  where  it  is  said 
that  "all  the  people  answered  together  and  said, 
all  that  the  Lord  hath  spoken  we  will  do  ;  and  Moses 
told  the  words  of  the  people  unto  the  Lord;"  whereas 
in  the  verse  immediately  preceding  it  is.  said,  that 
"  Moses  came  and  called  for  the  elders  of  the  peopte, 
and  laid  before  their  faces  all  these  words  v»^hich  the 
Lord  commanded  him."  Another  example  of  the 
same  thing  may  be  found  in  Deut.  5  :  23,  where  Moses, 
addressing  the  people,  says,  "Ye  cam'e  near  unto  me, 
(even)  all  the  heads  of  j^our  tribes  and  your  elders." 

In  the  Mosaic  ritual,  the  Elders  -are  recognized  as 
the  representatives  of  the  people,  not  only  by  being 
joined  with  Aaron  and  his  sons  in  the  directions  with 
respect  to  certain  sacrifices  (Lev.  9  :  1),  but  in  the  sol- 
emn ceremony  of  imposing  hands  upon  the  victim,  as  a 
symbol  of  the  transfer  of  the  sins  of  the  whole  people 
to  the  substitute  (Lev.  4 :  15). 

The  "seventy  elders"  (Num.  11 :  25),  who  acted  as 
assistants  to  Moses  and  Aaron  in  certain  cases,  were 
not  ordained  to  a  new  office,  but  merely  selected  for  a 
special  purpose  from  a  body  of  men  already  in  exist- 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   ELDERSHIP.  ,  5 

ence.  They  are  expressly  called  "  seventy  of  the  el- 
ders "  (Ex.  24  :  1),  "  seventy  men  of  tLie  elders  of  Israel, 
■whom  thou  knowest  to  be  the  elders  of  the  people  and 
officers  set  over  them"  (Num.  11:16).  Nothing  could 
more  clearly  intimate  the  previous  existence  and  offi- 
cial standing  of  the  elders.  In  this  case  it  is  plain  that 
the  word  "  officers"  is  in  apposition  with  "  elders"  and 
explanatory  of  it,  a  remark  which  admits  of  a  very  ex- 
tensive and  important  application. 

The  use  of  the  same  term  in  reference  to  other 
nations,  if  it  does  not  prove  that  the  same  natural  and 
simple  organization  obtained  among  them,  proves  what 
is  more  important,  that  the  Hebrew  writers  were  so 
perfectly  familiar  with  this  government  by  Elders,  and 
this  representation  of  the  people  by  their  Elders,  that 
they  naturally  used  expressions  borrowed  from  it,  to 
describe  the  institutions  of  other  countries.  In  Num. 
22  :  4,  we  read  that  "  Moab  said  unto  the  Elders  of 
Midian,"  which  might  seem  to  imply  a  difference  of 
organization ;  but  that  Moab  means  the  Elders  of  Moab ^ 
appears  from  v.  7,  where  we  find  the  full  phrase,  "  and 
the  Elders  of  Moab  and  the  Elders  of  Midian  depart- 
ed." In  Joshua  9  :  11,  the  Gibeonites  describe  their 
rulers  by  the  name  of  Elders. 

In  the  laws  of  Moses  which  have  a  prospective 
reference  to  the  settlement  of  the  people  in  the  prom- 
ised land,  he  mentions  not  only  the  Elders  of  Israel 
collectively  (Lev.  4 :  15,  Num.  11  :  16)  and  the  Elders 
of  the  several  tribes  (Deut.  31 :  28.  29  :  10),  but  the 
Elders  of  cities  and  districts,  who  are  represented  as 
the  local  magistrates  or  judges  (Deut.  19  :  12.  21  :  2,  8, 
4,  6,  19.  22  :  15-18.  25 :  7-9). 

The  Elders  are  joined  with  Aaron  in  the  receiving 


6  '  ESSAY   I. 

of  the  law  (Lev.  9  :  1),  and  Avith  Moses  in  the  giving  of 
it  (Deut.  27  :  1).  In  like  manner  we  find  Joshua  ac- 
companied by  the  Elders  in  certain  public  acts  (Josh. 
7 ;.  6.  8  :  10).  In  those  cases  where  the  people  en  masse 
were  to  bear  a  part,  the  Elders  still  appear  as  their 
official  leaders  (Josh.  8 :  33.  23 :  2.  24 :  1),  though  in 
some  of  the  cases  here  referred  to,  it  is  doubtful  whether 
any  other  assembling  of  the  people  was  intended  or 
possible  than  that  of  a  representative  nature.  In  Josh. 
23 :  2,  for  example,  we  may  either  read  "  the  people 
and  their  elders,"  or  "the  people  even  (viz.)  their 
elders." 

That  the  government  by  Elders  still  existed  after 
the  conquest  of  Canaan,  is  evident  from  history. 
When  Gideon  dealt  with  the  people  of  Succoth,  it  was 
in  the  person  of  their  Elders  (Judg.  8  :  16) ;  Jephthah's 
negotiations  were  with  the  Elders  of  Gilead  (Judg.  11 : 
5-11);  and  at  the  very  close  of  the  book  of  Judges 
we  find  the  "Elders  of  the  congregation,"  i.  e.  of 
the  whole  church  and  nation,  deliberating  jointly  on  a 
matter  which  concerned  their  relations  to  a  single  tribe 
(Judg.  21 :  16). 

The  local  Elders  seem  to  have  been  numerous. 
Those  of  Succoth  were  in  number  seventy-seven,  as 
appears  from  Judges  8 :  14,  where  Elders  and  Princes 
(i.  e.  rulers,  chiefs)  are  in  apposition,  and  descriptive 
of  one  office.  The  Elders  of  the  people  are  again 
mentioned,  Euth4:  4.  The  influence  of  the  Elders 
in  withstanding  the  progress  of  corruption,  after  the 
death  of  Moses  and  Joshua,  is  twice  expressly  re- 
corded (Josh.  24  :  31.    Judges  2  :  7). 

In  the  time  of  Samuel,  we  still  meet  with  occasional 


ORIGIN   OF   THE    ELDEESHIP.  7 

allusions  to  the  Elders  of  cities  (e.  g.  Jabesli,  1  Sam. 
11 :  3,  and  Betlileliem  cb.  16  :  4),  the  Elders  of  tribes 
(e.  g.  Judah,  1  Sam.  30 :  26),  and  the  Elders  of  all  Is- 
rael, as  the  collective  rulers  of  the  nation,  who  made 
war  and  peace  (1  Sam.  4 :  3),  changed  the  external 
form  of  government  (8 :  4:),  to  whom  even  Samuel  list- 
ened with  respect  (ib.),  and  of  whose  contempt  even 
Saul  was  afraid  (15 :  30).  The  circumstances  attending 
the  introduction  of  monarchy  show  clearly  that  the 
change  was  a  formal  one,  and  that  after  as  before  it 
the  details  of  the  government  continued  in  the  hands 
of  the  hereditary  Elders, 

During  the  reigns  of  David  and  Solomon,  we  find 
the  most  important  questions  of  government  (as,  for 
example,  who  should  be  king)  repeatedly  referred  to, 
and  decided  by,  the  Elders  of  Israel  (2  Sam.  3 :  17. 5  :  3, 
1  Chron.  11 :  3)  and  Judah  (2  Sam.  19 :  11).  When 
Absalom  usurped  his  father's  throne,  it  was  with  the 
connivance  of  the  Elders  of  Israel  (2  Sam,  17 :  4,  15). 
When  Solomon  was  about  to  remove  the  ark,  he  as- 
sembled the  Eiders  of  Israel,  i.  e.  "  the  heads  of  the 
tribes,  the  chiefs  of  the  fathers  of  the  children  of  Is- 
rael ;"  for  these  v/ords  are  to  be  regarded  as  explana- 
tory of  the  title  elders  (1  Kings  8 :  1,  3.  2  Chron.  5 :  2, 
4).  The  officers  of  David's  palace  are  called  the  Elders 
of  his  house  (2  Sam.  12  :  17).  That  the  king  was  com- 
monly attended  by  Elders  as  counsellors  and  aids,  may 
be  gathered  from  such  incidental  statements  as  that  in 
1  Chr.  15:  25.  21:  16. 

Solomon  himself  alludes  to  this  organization  when, 
describing  the  husband  of  the  virtuous  woman,  he 
says,  "  her  husband  is  known  in  the  gate,  when  he 
sitteth  among  the  Elders  of  the  land"  (Prov.  31 :  23). 


8  ESSAY  I, 

Isaiali  mentions  the  Elder,  in  ennraerating  the 
public  persons  Avho  were  to  be  removed  from  Judah 
(Isa.  3:2.  9  :  14).  He  describes  Jehovah's  contro- 
versy with  his  people  as  carried  on  against  "  the  El- 
ders, even  the  rulers,  of  the  people,"  as  their  represen- 
tatives. In  predicting  the  future  glory  of  the  church, 
or  of  Jehovah  in  the  church,  he  says,  "  The  Lord  shall 
reign  in  Mount  Zion,  and  in  Jerusalem,  and  before  his 
Elders,  gloriously"  (Isa.  24:23). 

After  the  revolt  of  the  ten  tribes,  the  government 
by  Elders  still  subsisted  in  both  kingdoms.  When 
Benhadad,  king  of  Syria,  sent  an  overbearing  message 
to  Ahab,  king  of  Israel,  the  latter  "  called  all  the 
Elders  of  the  land,"  and  acted  by  their  counsel 
(1  Kings  20  :  7,  8).  When  the  same  king  wished  to 
obtain  Naboth's  vineyard,  Jezebel  procured  the  death 
of  Naboth  by  her  influence  over  "the  Elders  and  the 
nobles"  (or  even  the  nobles)  "  that  were  in  his  city" 
(1  Kings  21 :  8). 

The  practice  of  regarding  the  elders  as  the  people, 
in  all  public  acts,  still  appears  in  such  expressions  as 
"  the  men  of  his  city,  even  the  elders  and  the  nobles  that 
were  in  his  city"  (1  Kings  21 :  11),  and  in  the  statement 
that  Josiah  "  went  up  into  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and 
ALL  THE  MEN  OF  JuDAH,  and  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusa- 
lem, and  the  priests  and  levites,  and  all  the  people, 
great  and  small"  (2  Kings  23 :  2.  2  Chron.  34 :  30). 
Strictly  understood,  this  was  impossible.  It  is  not, 
however,  a  mere  synecdoche  or  hyperbole.  It  does  not 
mean  that  some  of  the  people  went  up,  which  would 
not  account  for  the  strength  of  the  expressions.  The 
whole  people,  great  and  small,  were  really  present, 
according  to  the   principle  of  representation.     They 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   ELDERSHIP.  9 

were  present  in  tlie  person  of  their  Elders,  for  we  read 
in  2  Kings  23  :  1  (2  Chron.  34  :  29),  that  "  the 
king  sent,  and  they  gathered  unto  him  all  the 
Elders  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem."  The  existence  of 
local  Elders,  during  this  same  period,  may  be  inferred, 
not  only  from  the  case  of  Naboth  above  mentioned, 
but  from  the  incidental  statements,  that  "  Elisha  sat  in 
his  house,  and  the  Elders  sat  with  him"  (2  Kings  6  : 
32);  and  that  "Jehu  wrote  letters,  and  sent  to  Sama- 
ria, unto  the  rulers  of  Jezreel,  the  Elders"  (2  Kings  10 : 
1).  In  this  last  case,  the  identity  of  the  rulers  and 
elders  is  unusually  clear  from  the  omission  of  the  copu- 
lative, which  shows  that  when  the  particle  appears  in 
other  cases  of  the  same  kind,  it  is  not  distinctive  but 
explanatory.  The  official  existence  and  activity  of 
Elders  may  be  traced  to  the  very  end  of  the  kingdom 
of  Judah,  as  we  find  "  the  elders  of  the  land,"  in  the 
reign  of  Jehoiakim,  interposing  in  behalf  of  Jeremiah 
(Jer.  26 :  17). 

One  advantage  of  this  presbyterial  constitution 
was,  that  being  founded  upon  natural  relations,  it 
could  exist  wherever  families  existed ;  and  we  find 
accordingly  that,  as  it  was  maintained  during  the  long 
sojourn  of  Israel  in  Egypt,  so  the  Elders  were  still 
recognized,  as  a  distinct  order,  in  the  Babylonish  exile, 
as  appears  from  "  the  letter  that  Jeremiah  the  Prophet 
sent  from  Jerusalem  unto  the  residue  of  the  Elders 
which  were  carried  away  captive,"  etc.  (Jer.  29 :  1). 
So,  likewise,  when  the  exiles  applied  to  Ezekiel  for 
information  as  to  the  will  of  God,  it  was  through  their 
Elders  (Ezek.  20  :  1, 3).  When  he  was  transported  in 
vision  to  Jerusalem,  he  was  made  to  see  the  abomina- 
tions committed  by  "the  Elders  of  the  house  of  Israel" 
1^^ 


10  ESSAY   I. 

(Ezek.  8 :  12) ;  and  at  the  very  time  when  the  trance 
fell  upon  him  he  was  sitting,  like  Elisha,  in  his  house, 
and  "the  Elders  of  Judah'"  sat  before  him  (ib.  v.  1). 

And  as  the  official  rank  of  the  Elders  was  still 
recognized  during  the  captivity,  so  it  re-appears  after 
the  return  from  exile.  The  decrees  made  were  "accord- 
ing to  the  counsel  of  the  Princes  and  the  Elders"  (Ezra 
10 :  8),  or,  as  we  have  seen  that  this  construction  proba- 
bly means,  "  the  Chiefs,  to  wit,  the  Elders,"  The  combi- 
nation is  intended  to  show  that  the  chiefs  referred  to 
were  not  temporary  or  extraordinary  ones,-  but  such  as 
held  power  under  the  ancient  theocratical  constitution. 
So  in  Ezra  10 :  14,  where  the  "  Rulers  (or  Elders)  of  all 
the  congregation"  are  distinguished  from  "  the  El- 
ders of  every  city  and  the  Judges  thereof,"  the  last 
phrase  seems  to  be  exegetical  of  the  former,  and 
intended  to  show  that  the  Elders  of  each  city  were  its 
local  magistrates,  which,  as  we  have  seen  already,  was 
the  ancient  Hebrew  polity. 

The  "  Elders  of  the  Priests,""  who  are  occasionally 
mentioned  (Isa.  37  :  2.  2  Kings  19  :  2),  appear  to  have 
been  the  heads  of  the  several  branches  of  the  family  of 
Aaron,  the  same  who  in  the  New  Testament  are  called 
apxi^pet<;  or  Chief  Priests,  In  Jer.  19 :  1,  they  are 
distinguished  from  the  "Elders  of  the  people,"  i.  e.  of 
the  other  tribes. 

This  organization  was  for  religious  as  well  as  civil 
purposes.  Hence  the  Psalmist  says,  "  Praise  him  in 
the  assembly  of  the  Elders"  (Ps.  107:82),  Indeed, 
the  whole  organization  of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth 
was  for  a  religious  purpose.  The  nation  was  the 
church.  The  same  chiefs  who  presided  over  secular 
affairs,  presided  over  sacred  things,  except  that  what 


ORIGIN   OF   THE    ELDERSHIP,  11 

related  to  ceremonial  matters  was  intrusted  to  the 
chiefs  of  a  single  tribe  exclusively.  Sacrifice  and  all 
that  pertained  to  it  was  under  the  direction  of  the 
Priests  at  the  tabernacle  or  temple  ;  but  when  the 
people  met  elsewhere  for  spiritual  worship,  it  was  un- 
der the  direction  of  their  natural  and  ordinary  chiefs, 
the  Elders.  These  meetings  were  in  later  times  called 
avvwyw^/ai^  a  name  which  was  sometimes  extended  to 
the  houses  in  which  they  were  held. 

This  view  of  the  matter  relieves  the  question  as  to 
the  antiquity  of  synagogues  from  much  of  its  diiUculty. 
The  common  opinion  is,  that  they  arose  during  the 
captivity,  when  the  people  had  no  access  to  the  temple. 
But  the  temple-service  and  that  of  the  synagogue  were 
totally  distinct.  The  one  could  not  be  a  succedaneum 
for  the  other.  If  the  want  of  a  local  spiritual  Avorship 
was  felt  during  the  exile,  it  must  have  been  felt  centu- 
ries before.  It  seems  incredible  that,  during  a  course 
of  ages,  those  who  could  not  attend  the  temple  were 
without  any  stated  worship.  The  argument  urged  in 
favour  of  this  doctrine  is,  that  synagogues  are  not  men- 
tioned before  the  captivity.  But  this  proceeds  upon 
the  supposition,  that  the  ancient  synagogue  was  a  dis- 
tinct organization  within  the  body  politic,  an  imperiwm 
in  imperio.  The  difiiculty  vanishes  as  soon  as  we 
assume,  that  it  was  nothing  but  the  stated  meeting  of 
the  people,  under  their  national  organization,  for  a 
particular  purpose,  the  worship  of  God.  It  was 
a  civil  organization  used  for  a  religious  purpose ;  or 
rather,  it  was  one  organization,  used  both  for  a  religious 
and  a  civil  purpose ;  as  in  England  the  parislies  are 
both  ecclesiastical  and  political  divisions  of  the  king- 
dom.    The  same  state  of  things  would  exist  among  us. 


12  ESSAY   I. 

if  tlie  townships  met  statedly  for  public  worship,  under 
the  same  moderators  and  committees  who  are  charged 
with  the  conduct  of  their  secular  affairs.  These  offi- 
cers would  answer  to  the  Jewish  Elders.  Under  such 
a  system,  church  and  state  would  not  only  be  united 
but  identified,  as  they  were  in  the  Hebrew  common- 
wealth. The  Jewish  church  was  the  Jewish  nation, 
and  the  same  persons  Avere  church-officers  and  magis- 
trates. The  instruction  of  the  j^eople,  and  perhaps 
the  conduct  of  religious  worship,  were  probably  in- 
trusted to  the  Levites,  who,  when  not  on  actual  duty 
at  Jerusalem,  lived  dispersed  among  the  people.  From 
this  tribe  probably  proceeded  most  of  the  Scribes, 
Lawyers,"  or  Doctors  of  the  Law,  which  seem  to  have 
been  titles,  not  of  an  office,  but  of  a  profession,  the  busi- 
ness of  which  was  to  expound  the  Scriptures,,  and  per- 
haps to  take  the  lead  in  public  worship.  But  the  legal 
authority"  in  these  as  well  as  other  things,  resided  in 
the  Elders  of  the  several  communities,  who,  in  relation 
to  their  spiritual  functions  were  called  Elders  or  Rulers 
of  the  Synagogue. 

This  state  of  things  still  continued  when  Christ 
came.  The  people  were  still  governed  by  their  Elders, 
both  in  civil  and  religious  matters.  Collectively,  the 
Elders  are  called  Elders  of  the  Peoj^le  (Matthew  21 :  23. 
26 :  3),  and  Elders  of  the  Jews  (Luke  7 :  3),  and  are  con- 
tinually joined  with  the  Chief  Priests  (or  Elders  of  the 
Priests),  in  all  the  public  acts  with  reference  to  the 
arrest,  trial,  condemnation,  and  crucifixion  of  our 
Lord  (Matt.  16  :  21.  26  :  47,  59.  27  :  1,  3,  12.  28  :  12, 
etc).  Peter  and  John  were  arraigned  before  the  Elders 
of  Israel  (Acts  4:  8,  23);  Stephen  Avas  condemned  by 
them   (Acts  6  :  12) ;    Paul  was  persecuted  by   them 


ORIGIN    OF   THE    ELDERSHIP.  13 

(Acts  23  :  14),  and  bj  them  accused  before  the  Roman 
governor  (Acts  24 : 1.  25  :  15). 

There  seems  to  be  no  doubt,  then,  that  the  govern- 
ment by  Elders,  which  we  have  seen  to  be  coeval  with 
the  commonwealth,  and  to  have  survived  all  political 
changes,  continued  until  the  destruction  of  the  temple 
and  dispersion  of  the  people. 

Our  Lord  began  his  ministry  by  exhorting  men  to 
repent  because  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  at  hand. 
In  this  he  was  preceded  by  John  the  Baptist,  and  fol- 
lowed by  the  twelve  disciples  whom  he  sent  out  for 
the  purpose,  "  whom  also  he  named  Apostles'''  (Luke  6  : 
13).  That  which  they  all  preached  or  proclaimed  was 
the  gospel  of  the  Idngdom  (Matt.  4 :  23.  9 :  35.  24 :  14. 
Mark  1 :  14),  i.  e.  the  good  news  that  a  kingdom  was 
about  to  be  established.  That  this  new  kingdom  was 
not  to  be  merely  inward  and  spiritual,  is  clear  from 
what  is  said  as  to  the  personal  distinctions  and  diver- 
sities of  ranks  which  were  to  have  place  in  it  (Matt. 
5  :  19.  11  :  11.  18  :  4).  If  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
merely  meant  an  inward  state,  in  what  sense  could 
one  be  greater  than  another  as  a  subject  of  that  king- 
dom ?  Such  expressions  necessarily  imply  that  it  de- 
notes an  outward  state  of  things,  and  that  not  merely 
a  condition  of  society,  but  a  society  itself.  It  was  call- 
ed a  kingdom,  not  merely  because  the  hearts  and  lives 
of  men  were  to  be  governed  by  new  principles,  but  be- 
cause they  were  to  be  brought,  even  externally,  under 
a  new  regime^  an  organized  government.  True,  the 
spiritual  nature  of  this  government  is  also  asserted. 
Christ  himself  declared,  that  his  kingdom  was  not  of 
this  world  (John  18 :  36),  and  Paul  tells  the  Romans 
that  "  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not  meat  and  drink,  but 


14  ESSAY   I. 

righteousness  and  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost" 
(Rom.  14  :  17).  Our  Lord  himself,  on  beiDg  asked 
when  the  kingdom  of  God  should  come,  answered, 
"the  kingdom  of  God  cometh  not  fxera  nraparripr)- 
o-ew?,"  in  a  striking  and  sensible  manner;  "for,"  he 
adds,  "  the  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you"  (Luke  17  : 
21).  All  these  expressions  were  intended  to  guard 
against  the  opposite  extreme  of  considering  the  king- 
dom of  God  as  something  merely  external,  and  to  di- 
rect attention  to  those  spiritual  changes  which  were 
necessarily  involved  in  the  true  doctrine  of  the  king- 
dom. The  very  design  of  its  establishment  was  spir- 
itual. It  was  to  exercise  authority  in  the  hearts  of 
men.  Hence,  unless  it  did  affect  their  hearts,  it  mat- 
tered not  what  outward  signs  of  its  approach  were 
visible.  Unless  it  was  within  them,  it  could  not  pos- 
sibly exist  without  them,  or  rather  they  could  have  no 
part  in  its  advantages.  It  did  not  follow  from  this, 
however,  that  it  existed  only  within  them,  any  more 
than  it  followed,  from  the  necessity  of  faith  to  give  effi- 
cacy to  sacrifices,  that  there  was  no  need  of  the  out- 
ward rite  at  all.  The  kingdom  of  God  was  an  out- 
ward institution  for  a  spiritual  purpose.  It  was  to  be 
as  really  a  kingdom  as  the  kingdom  of  David  or  of 
Herod.  Was  it  then  to  take  the  place  of  the  old  sys- 
tem, as  of  something  wholly  different  in  kind?  Not 
at  all.  It  was  merely  to  succeed  it,  as  the  end  suc- 
ceeds the  beginning,  as  maturity  succeeds  infancy  and 
youth.  The  Jews  were  already  under  a  theocracy. 
God  was  their  king  in' a  peculiar  sense.  He  did  not 
merely  rule  them,  as  he  does  all  nations,  with  a  provi- 
dential sway.  He  filled  that  place  in  their  political 
system  which  is  filled  in  other  states  hj  human  sove- 


ORIGIN   OF   THE    ELDERSHIP.  15 

reigns.  Jerusalem  was  his  capital,  and  the  temple 
there  his  palace.  This  was  still  the  case  during  all 
the  outward  changes  in  the  form  of  government.  But 
this  system  was  a  temporary  one.  It  had  been  pre- 
dicted, that  the  time  was  coming  when  God  should 
reign,  not  only  over  the  Jews,  but  in  all  parts  of  the 
earth,  not  under  the  forms  of  any  national  organiza- 
tion, but  independently  of  the  kingdoms  of  the  world. 
The  restrictions  of  the  ancient  theocracy  were  to  be 
done  away.  This  was  the  kingdom  which  our  Lord 
announced,  and  for  which  he  called  upon  the  people 
to  prepare  by  reformation  and  repentance,  an  organiz- 
ed system  of  government  distinct  from  all  secular  esta- 
blishments, in  other  words  a  church. 

The  Jews  who  used  the  Greek  language  were  per- 
fectly familiar  with  the  word  eKKXrjaia  from  its  fre- 
quent occurrence  in  the  Septuagint  as  an  equivalent 
to  bnf?,  one  of  the  Hebrew  terms  denoting  the  whole 
congregation  of  Israel.  It  was  not  merely  a  collec- 
tive name  for  many  dispersed  individuals  having  a 
common  character  or  faith  or  practice,  but  a  defined 
body,  a  distinct  society,  called  out  from  the  world  at 
large,  called  together  for  a  special  purpose,  and  pos- 
sessing within  itself  an  organization  for  the  attain- 
ment of  that  purpose.  Such  was  the  church  of  the 
Old  Testament.  The  Jewish  nation  was  set  apart 
for  a  peculiar  purpose,  and  received  a  peculiar  or- 
ganization with  reference  to  that  purpose.  The  iden- 
tity of  this  church  with  the  church  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament may  be  argued  from  the  identity  of  their  de- 
sign, which  was,  in  either  case,  to  preserve  and  per- 
petuate divine  truth,  to  maintain  public  worship,  and 
promote  spiritual  edification  by  means  of  discipline. 


16  ESSAY   I. 

mutual  communion,  and  a  common  participation  in 
the  same  advantages.  These  ends  were  attained  in 
different  ways  under  the  two  systems.  What  was 
prospective  in  the  one  was  retrospective  in  the  other. 
Christ  was  the  end  of  the  law  and  the  beginning  of 
the  gospel.  Both  pointed  to  him,  though  in  dif- 
ferent directions ;  but  as  to  their  main  design  and 
fundamental  principles,  they  were  the  same.  Our 
Lord  came  not  to  destroy  but  to  fulfil.  He  came 
not  so  much  to  institute  a  new  church,  as  to  give 
a  new  organization  to  the  old,  or  rather  to  prepare 
the  way  for  such  a  re-organization ;  which  did  not 
take  place,  and  was  not  meant  to  take  place,  during 
his  personal  ministry. 

This  is  evident,  1.  From  the  absence  of  any  intima- 
tion, expressed  or  implied,  of  such  organization.  There 
is  no  account  given  in  the  gospels  of  the  formation  of 
societies,  or  the  creation  of  any  officers,  except  the 
twelve  and  the  seventy,  who  were  sent  out  with  pre- 
cisely the  same  powers.  The  only  difference  is  this, 
that  we  hear  no  more  of  the  seventy,  from  which  we 
may  infer,  that  they  were  appointed  for  a  temporary 
purpose,  perhaps  to  spread  the  first  annunciation  of  the 
kingdom  more  extensively  than  the  twelve  could  do 
it,  although  the  latter  body  was  sufficiently  numerous 
for  all  its  ulterior  functions. 

2.  The  appointment  of  these  ministers  does  not 
imply  an  actual  organization  of  the  Christian  church, 
because  they  were  originally  appointed,  and  during 
their  Lord's  presence  upon  earth  employed,  as  the -an- 
nouncers of  a  state  of  things  which  was  still  in  pros- 
pect. We  have  seen  that  our  Lord  and  his  forerunner 
called  men  to  repent,  because  the  kingdom  of  heaven 


ORIGIN   OF  THE   ELDERSHIP.  17 

was  at  hand.  To  provide  assistants  and  successors  in 
this  great  work  of  announcing  the  new  state  of  things, 
he  began  to  select  persons  who  should  attend  him  for 
that  purpose.  Of  the  persons  thus  gradually  gathered, 
six  are  particularly  mentioned  in  the  course  of  the 
narrative,  namely,  Andrew,  Peter,  James,  John,  Philip, 
and  Matthew.  When  the  number  amounted  to  twelve, 
they  were  formed  into  a  body  and.  invested  with  offi- 
cial powers.  The  remaining  six  were  Bartholomew, 
Thomas,  James  the  son  of  Alpheus,  Lebbeus  or  Thad- 
deus,  Simon  the  Canaanite,  and  Judas  Iscariot.  These 
twelve  are  expressly  said  to  have  been  appointed 
"  that  they  might  be  with  him,  and  that  he  might  send 
them  forth "  (Mark  3 :  14).  Their  duties  then  were 
twofold,  to  be  with  Christ  that  they  might  learn,  and 
to  go  from  him  that  they  might  teach.  In  the  one 
case  they  were  /xa'^rjTai,  in  the  other  aTrSaToXoi.  They 
first  remained  with  him  as  disciples,  and  then  went 
forth  as  apostles.  Hence  they  arc  sometimes  called 
"the  twelve  disciples"  (Matt.  10:  1.  11:1.  20  :  17. 
Luke  9 :  1),  and  even  the  indefinite  expression 
"  the  disciples "  sometimes  means  the  twelve  exclu- 
sively (Matt.  12  :  1.  13  :  10,  36.  Mark  11 :  14).  One 
of  these  states  was  preparatory  to  the  other.  They 
were  disciples  in  order  that  they  might  become  apos- 
tles. They  remained  with  Christ  to  learn  how  they 
must  act  when  they  should  go  forth  from  him.  When 
they  did  go  forth,  it  was  to  announce  the  approach  of 
the  new  dispensation,  the  re-organization  of  the  church, 
or,  as  they  expressed  it,  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  of 
God.  This  was  their  office,  to  which  their  other  pow- 
ers were  subsidiary.  Their  preaching  was  not  so  much 
doctrinal  instruction  as  the  announcement  of  approach- 


18  ESSAY  I. 

ing  changes.  Their  work  was  to  excite  attention  and 
direct  it  to  the  proper  object.  To  aid  them  in  so  doing, 
and  to  attest  the  authority  by  which  they  acted,  they 
were  empowered  to  work  miracles  of  healing.  They 
were  also  inspired,  at  least  for  purposes  of  self-defence 
when  publicly  accused.  They  were  thus  commissioned 
as  co-workers  with  their  Lord  in  the  work  of  intro- 
ducing the  new  dispensation  and  preparing  for  the  re- 
organization of  the  church.  But  these  very  facts  imply 
that  it  was  not  yet  re-organized. 

3.  The  same  thing  is  evident  from  the  omission  of 
the  name  by  which  the  body,  after  its  re-organization, 
is  invariably  called.  This  word  {eKKXrjcria),  which  ac- 
cording to  Greek  usage  signifies  an  aggregate  assembly 
of  the  people  for  municipal  purposes,  is  the  term  ap- 
plied, as  we  have  seen,  in  the  Septuagint  version,  to 
the  whole  JcAvish  church  or  congregation.  In  the  New 
Testament  it  is  applied  (with  some  apparent  reference 
to  the  peculiar  use  of  KoXico  and  kXtjctl'^  in  the  sense  of 
calling  so  as  to  elect  and  qualifj^)  to  the  original  body 
of  believers  at  Jerusalem,  and  then  to  the  whole  body 
of  believers  in  the  world,  considered  as  forming  an 
organized  society,  and  also  by  a  natural  synecdoche  "to 
bodies  of  Christians  in  particular  places,  as  component 
parts  or  subdivisions  of  the  whole  church.  In  all  these 
senses  the  word  is  familiarly  employed  in  the  Acts 
and  Epistles,  whereas  in  the  Gospels  it  occurs  but 
twice,  and  then,  as  it  should  seem,  in  a  prospective 
application.  The  first  is  in  the  memorable  address  to 
Peter  :  "  Thou  art  Peter,  and  on  this  rock  will  I  build 
my  church"  (Matt.  16:  18).  Without  adverting  here 
to  the  vexed  question  whether  Peter  was  the  rock, 
and  if  s^,  in  what,  sense  the  church  was  to  be  built 


ORIGIN    OF  THE   ELDERSHIP.  19 

upon  him,  it  is  plain,  from  the  very  form  of  the  ex- 
pression [oiKoSo/j.'^ao)),  that  the  founding  of  the  church 
is  spoken  of  as  an  event  still  future.  The  other  case 
is  in  our  Lord's  directions  as  to  the  proper  mode  of 
dealing  with  private  offenders.  "  If  thy  brother  tres- 
pass against  thee,  tell  it  to  the  church"  (Matt.  18 :  17). 
If  this  means  a  Christian  body  then  in  existence,  why 
is  it  nowhere  else  recognized  or  called  by  the  same 
name  in  the  gospel  history  ?  If  not,  it  must  either 
mean  the  Jewish  church  then  in  existence,  or  the 
Christian  church  yet  to  be  organized.  From  this  it 
would  seem  to  be  at  least  highly  probable,  that  there 
was  no  re-organization  of  the  church  during  the  period 
of  the  gospel  history. 

4.  The  same  thing  is  evident  from  the  many  in- 
stances in  which  our  Lord  tells  his  disciples  what  shall 
be  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  a  state  of  things  still 
future. 

5.  It  is  also  evident  from  the  manifest  ignorance  of 
the  apostles  as  to  the  details  of  the  re-organization,  their 
gross  mistakes,  and  their  frequent  inquiries,  often  be- 
traying an  entire  misconceptio'"  ■  i  the  nature  of  Christ's 
kingdom. 

6.  Closely  connected  with  the  proof  just  stated  is 
the  consideration,  that  the  twelve,  though  qualified  to 
be  the  announcers  of  the  kingdom,  were  as  yet  unqua- 
lified to  be  its  rulers.  Their  notions,  as  to  their  Lord's 
character  and  person,  were  confused  and  erroneous. 
Their  views  were  narrow  ;  they  were  full  of  Jewish 
prej  udices ;  they  were  slow  of  heart  to  understand  and 
believe  the  Scriptures ;  they  were  selfish  and  ambi- 
tious ;  they  were  envious  and  jealous.  This  is  the 
picture  drawn  by  inspiration,    and   among  the  pens 


20  ESSAY  I. 

employed  were  two  of  tlieir  own  number.  The  whole 
account  is  that  of  persons  in  a  state  of  pupilage,  set 
apart  for  a  work,  with  which  thej  were  only  partially 
acquainted,  and  for  which  they  were  yet  to  be  pre- 
pared. Witness  their  consternation  and  amazement 
when  their  Lord  was  taken  from  them,  and  the  various 
instances  in  which  it  is  recorded  that  the  simplest 
truths  were  understood  by  them  after  his  resurrection 
from  the  dead.  Nor  is  this  unfavourable  view  contra- 
dicted by  the  fact  of  their  inspiration,  which  appears 
to  have  been  limited  to  a  sj^ecial  purpose,  as  we  know 
that  their  power  of  working  miracles  was  not  a  discre- 
tionary power.  (See  Matt.  17:  16.)  When  our  Lord 
rose  from  the  dead,  his  first  address  to  the  eleven  was 
in  the  language  of  rebuke  (Mark  16:  14).  He  then 
reassured  them  and  enlarged  their  powers.  He  gave 
them  indeed  no  new  powers,  but  commissioned  them 
to  exercise  those  which  they  possessed  already  on  a 
larger  scale.  At  first  they  were  commanded  to  go 
neither  to  the  Greeks  nor  the  Samaritans,  but  only  to 
the  Jews.  Now  they  are  commissioned  to  go  into  all 
the  earth  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature 
(Mark  16:  15).  At  first  they  were  sent  out  to  an- 
nounce the  coming  of  God's  kingdom  to  the  Jews,  now 
to  the  Gentiles  also.  The  removal  of  this  restriction 
marks  the  beginning  of  the  new  dispensation.  As' 
long  as  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  was  sent  only  to  the 
Jews,  the  old  economy  was  still  in  force,  and  there  was 
no  room  for  a  new  organization. 

7.  The  commission  to  baptize  (Matt.  28:  19)  was 
not  a  new  one.  This  they  had  done  before  (John  3  : 
26.  4:  1,  2),  as  an  expression  of  readiness,  on  the  part 
of  the  baptized,  to  take  part  in  the  kingdom  of  God, 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   ELDERSHIP.  21 

when  it  should  be  set  up.  But  that  this  rite  was  not 
considered  as  implying  that  the  kingdom  was  set  up 
already,  is  clear  from  the  anxious  question,  asked  b}^ 
the  eleven,  at  the  very  moment  of  their  Lord's  ascen- 
sion, "Lord,  wilt  thou,  at  this  time,  restore  again  the 
kingdom  to  Israel  ?"  (Acts  1 :  6).  It  is  clear  from  this 
inquiry,  that  they  had  not  even  formed  a  just  concep- 
tion of  the  nature  of  the  kingdom,  in  which  they  were 
to  be  rulers ;  how  much  more  that  they  had  not  already 
witnessed  its  erection. 

8,  In  reply  to  the  question  just  referred  to,  Christ 
does  not  tell  them  that  the  kingdom  was  restored  al- 
red,dy,  but  tacitly  admits  that  it  was  yet  to  come.  "  It 
is  not  for  you  to  know  the  times  or  the  seasons  which 
the  Father  has  put  in  his  own  power;  but  ye  shall 
receive  power  when  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come  upon  you; 
and  ye  shall  be  witnesses  unto  me,  both  in  Jerusalem 
and  in  all  Judea,  and  in  Samaria,  and  unto  the  utter- 
most parts  of  the  earth"  (Acts  1 :  7,  8).  Here  we  have 
at  once  the  removal  of  those  restrictions  which,  as  we 
have  seen,  were  inseparable  from  the  old  economy, 
and  the  promise  of  that  influence  by  which  the  twelve 
were  to  be  qualified  to  organize  the  new  one.  This 
seems  to  fix  prospectively  the  date  of  'the  actual  com- 
ing of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  organization  of 
the  Christian  church.  Until  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the 
apostles  and  brethren  were  merely  waiting  for  the 
kingdom  ;  and  it  ought  to  be  observed,  as  a  significant 
coincidence,  that  the  day  appointed  for  the  public  en- 
trance of  the  Holy  Ghost  into  the  Christian  Church, 
was  the  same  that  had  been  signalized  by  the  formal 
constitution  of  the  Jewish  Church  in  the  promulgation 
of  the  law  from  Sinai. 


22  ESSAY   I. 

9.  The  last  proof  "to  be  alleged,  in  favour  of  the  pro- 
position that  the  church  was  not  re-organized  until  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  is  furnished  by  the  subsequent  change 
in  the  character  and  conduct  of  the  twelve  apostles. 
We  are  too  much  accustomed  to  transfer  to  an  earlier 
period  associations  which  belong  to  a  later  one.  If  we 
read  the  Gospels  by  themselves,  without  interpolating 
facts  drawn  from  the  later  books,  we  shall  easily  see 
that  the  twelve  are  there  described  as  wholly  unfit  to 
be  the  supreme  rulers  of .  a  church  already  organized ; 
whereas  after  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  they  appear  as  new  men,  clothed,  with 
every  intellectual,  spiritual,  and  miraculous  endow- 
ment that  was  needed  for  the  right  administration  of 
that  kingdom  which  was  now  indeed  set  up  externally, 
as  well  as  in  the  hearts  of  all  believers^ 

It  is  now  for  the  first  time  that  we  begin  to  read  of 
a  "church,"  distinct  from  the  old  organization,  and 
consisting  of  the  apostles  "  and  other  disciples,"  to  the 
.  number  of  one  hundred  and  twenty,  who  had  assem- 
bled together  in  an  upper  room  until  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost, when  "there  were  added  unto  them  about  three 
thousand  souls,"  who  "  continued  steadfastly  in  the 
apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking  of 
bread,  and  in  prayers"  (Acts  2  :  42).  Here  we  have 
a  society  statedly  assembling  for  prayer,  praise,  preach- 
ing, and  communion,  i.  e.  a  church,  and  we  according- 
ly find  it  stated  in  the  same  connection  that  "  the  Lord 
added  to  the  church  daily  such  as  should  be  saved" 
(Acts  2  :  47),  and  afterwards  that  "  great  fear"  came 
upon  all  THE  church"  (Acts  5:11),  evidently  mean- 
ing all  the  members  of  the  body  which  had  thus  been 
gathered,  and  which  is  thenceforth  usually  called  "the 


ORIGIN   OF   THE    ELDERSHIP,  23 

chujcli"  (e.  g.  Acts  8 :  1,  3),  -until  the  establisliment  of 
other  churches  "  throughout  all  Judea,  Galilee,  and  Sa- 
maria" (Acts  9  :  31),  after  which  the  original  society  is 
distinguished  as  *'the  church  which  was  in  Jerusalem" 
(Acts  8 :  1. 11 :  22),  the  more  indefinite  expression  being 
thenceforth  used  to  designate  the  whole  Christian 
body,  of  which  "  the  churches"  were  component  parts 
or  rather  subdivisions  (Acts  12  :  1,  5),  except  in  cases 
where  the  context  evidently  limits  the  application  of 
the  term  to  a  local  society  or  congregation.  But  with 
these  distinctions  the  word  church  is,  in  the  latter 
books,  employed  with  a  frequency  which  forms  a 
striking  contrast  with  the  total  silence  of  the  four 
evangelists  respecting  any  new  organization. 

We  have  seen  that  Christ  came  to  establish  a  kinar- 
dom  and  re-organize  the  church.  "VVe  may  now  add 
that  this  organization  was  to  be  essentially  the  same 
with  that  which  had  before  existed.  This  is  deducible 
from  several  obvious  considerations.  1.  As  the  Chris- 
tian church  was  to  be  essentially  identical  with  the 
Jewish,  all  that  was  permanent,  even  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  one,  would  of  course  be  retained  in  the 
other.  The  kingly,  priestly,  and  prophetical  offices 
were  thenceforth  to  be  filled  by  Christ  alone.  The 
union  of  Church  and  State  was  to  be  done  away  by 
the  extension  of  the  church  beyond  the  limits  of  a 
single  nation.  But  the  government  of  the  people  by 
elders,  local  and  general,  was  wholly  independent  of 
these  temporary  institutions,  and  survived  them  all. 
It  was  therefore  natural  to  expect,  that  it  would  be 
continued  in  the  Christian  church.  2.  It  was  intrinsi- 
cally suited  to  every  variety  of  outward  circumstances, 
in  all  ages,  and  all  parts  of  the  world.     Being  origi- 


24  ESSAY   I. 

nally  founded  upon  natural  relations,  and  tlie  family 
constitution,  which  is  universal,  it  was  well  suited,  by 
its  simplicity,  for  general  adoption,  and  by  its  efl&cien- 
cy,  for  the  attainment  of  the  ends  proposed.  3.  The 
intention  to  retain  it  was  implied  in  our  Lord's  con- 
duct with  respect  to  the  Jewish  organization.  He  fre- 
quented the  synagogues,  or  meetings  of  the  people  for 
public  worship,  in  the  towns  or  neighbourhoods  where 
he  chanced  to  be,  and  especially  in  the  region  where 
he  was  brought  up.  He  complied  with  the  usages  of 
public  worship'  and  exercised  the  privilege  of  ex- 
pounding the  Scriptures  to  the  people.  This  respectful 
compliance  with  existing  institutions  he  continued  to 
the  last ;  and  his  example  was  followed  by  his  disci- 
ples. When  they  went  abroad  to  preach,  they  availed 
themselves  of  the  facilities  afforded  by  existing  insti- 
tutions and  arrangements.  They  always,  if  they  could, 
preached  in  the  synagogues.  Tlie  first  preaching,  even 
to  the  heathen,  was  in  synagogues.  It  was  only  where 
they  found  no  synagogues,  or  when  they  were  shut 
out  from  them,  that  they  began  to  form  separate  socie- 
ties. 4.  When  a  separate  organization  did  take  place, 
it  was  on  the  ancient  model.  The  first  Christian 
church,  as  we  have  seen,  was  at  Jerusalem.  Now  the 
organization  of  this  "  church  that  was  in  Jerusalem" 
is  entitled  to  particular  attention  upon  two  accounts ; 
first,  because  it  was  the  mother  church,  from  which 
the  other  churches  were  derived  by  propagation ; 
then,  because  all  the  twelve  apostles  were,  for  a  time, 
members  of  it.  So  far  then  as  apostolical  practice  and 
example  can  be  binding  upon  us,  the  history  of  this 
church  must  be  highly  instructive,  in  relation  to  the 


ORIGIN    OF   THE    ELDERSHIP.  25 

local  constitution  of  the  early  Christian  churches. 
Now  at  an  early  period,  when  a  communication  was 
made  to  the  church  at  Jerusalem  from  one  abroad,  it 
was  made  to  the  Elders  (Acts  11 :  30),  and  on  a  sub- 
sequent occasion  to  "the  Apostles  and  Elders"  (Acts 
15  :  2,  4:,  6,  22),  who  united  in  passing  a  decree  on  an 
important  question  of  faith  and  practice  (Acts  16:4), 
It  seems,  then,  that  even  while  the  Apostles  were  in 
intimate  connection  with  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  that 
church  was  governed  by  its  Elders ;  and,  what  is  par- 
ticularly worthy  of  attention,  we  nowhere  read  of  the 
original  creation  of  this  office  in  that  church.  We  can 
trace  the  offices  of  Deacon  and  Apostle  to  their  very 
origin,  whereas  that  of  Elder  runs  back  far  beyond 
the  organization  of  the  Christian  church,  and  appears 
in  the  history  as  an  arrangement,  not  springing  out 
of  a  new  state  of  things,  but  transferred  from  an  old 
one. 

Nor  was  this  adoption  of  the  eldership  a  mere  for- 
tuitous occurrence,  much  less  a  local  peculiarity  of  the 
church  in  Jerusalem.  It  was  extended,  as  a  thing  of 
course,  to  all  affiliated  churches.  When  Paul  and 
Barnabas  planted  churches  in  Asia  Minor,  they  or- 
dained them  Elders  (Acts  14  :  23).  Paul  sent  from 
Miletus  for  "the  Elders  of  the  Church"  at  Ephesus 
(Acts  20 :  17).  He  directs  Timothy  how  to  treat  El- 
ders (1  Tim.  5  :  1,  17,  19).  He  commands  Titus  to  or- 
dain Elders  in  every  city  of  Crete  (Titus  1 :  5).  James 
speaks  of  "the  Elders  of  the  Church"  as  of  a  body  of 
men,  which  was  not  only  well  known  to  his  readers, 
but  which  would  exist  of  course  in  every  Christian 
congregation  (James  5  :  14).  Peter  enjoins  submission 
to  the  Elders,  and  classes  himself  among  them  (1  Peter 
2 


26  ESSAY    T. 

5 :  1,  6),     John  calls  himself  an  Elder  in  the  title  of 
his  second  and  third  epistle. 

All  this  seems  to  show  that  the  office  of  Elder  was 
regarded  as  essential  to  the  organization  of  a  local  or 
particular  church.  As  to  the  mode  of  introducing  it, 
we  have  no  explicit  information.  The  most  probable 
hypothesis  is  one  which  I  shall  here  state  in  the 
words  of  an  eminent  living  dignitary  of  the  Anglican 
Church.  "It  appears  highly  probable — I  might  say 
morally  certain — that  wherever  a  Jewish  Synagogue 
existed  that  was  brought,  the  whole  or  the  chief  part 
of  it,  to  embrace  the  gospel,  the  Apostles  did  not  there 
so  much  form  a  Christian  church  (or  congregation,  ec- 
clesia),  as  make  an  existing  congregation  Christian,  by 
introducing  the  Christian  Sacraments  and  Worship, 
and  establishing  whatever  regulations  were  neces- 
sary for  the  newly-adopted  Faith ;  leaving  the  ma- 
chinery (if  I  may  so  speak)  of  government  unchanged ; 
the  rulers  of  synagogues,  elders,  and  other  officers 
(whether  spiritual  or  ecclesiastical,  or  both)  being  al- 
ready provided  in  the  existing  institutions.  And  it  is 
likely  that  several  of  the  earliest  Christian  churches 
did  originate  in  this  way,  that  is,  that  they  were  con- 
verted synagogues,  which  became  Christian  churches, 
as  soon  as  the  members,  or  the  main  part  of  the  mem- 
bers, acknowledged  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  The  attempt 
to  effect  this  conversion  of  a  Jewish  synagogue  into  a 
Christian  church,  seems  always  to  have  been  made,  in 
the  first  instance,  in  every  place  where  there  was  an 
opening  for  it.  Even  after  the  call  of  the  idolatrous 
Gentiles,  it  appears  plainly  to  have  been  the  practice 
of  the  Apostles  Paul  and  Barnabas,  when  they  came 
to  any  city  in  which  there  was  a  synagogue,  to  go 


ORIGIN    OF   THE   ELDERSHIP.  27 

thither  first  and  deliver  their  sacred  message  to  the 
Jews  and  '  devout  (or  proselyte)  Gentiles  ;'  according  to 
their  own  expression  (Acts  13  :  16),  to  the  'men  of  Is- 
rael and  those  that  feared  God,'  adding  that  it  was  ne- 
cessary that  the  word  of  God  should  be  '  first  preached 
to  them.'  And  when  they  found  a  church  in  any  of 
those  cities  in  which  (and  such  was  probably  a  very 
large  majority)  there  was  no  Jewish  synagogue  that 
received  the  gospel,  it  is  likely  they  would  still  con- 
forrn,  in  a  great  measure,  to  the  same  model."* 

In  so  doing,  they  would  of  course  fix  upon  the 
natural  elders,  i.  e.  heads  of  families,  as  answering 
most  nearly  to  the  hereditary  elders  of  the  Jews.  That 
the  genealogical  or  patriarchal  constitution  was  at  once 
or  by  degrees  disused,  is  not  at  all  at  variance  with  the 
supposition,  that  the  Jewish  eldership  was  transferred 
to  the  Christian  Church,  because  one  of  the  advan- 
tages of  this  organization  is  the  ease  with  which  it 
can  adapt  itself  to  any  state  of  manners  or  condition  of 
society,  all  that  is  really  essential  to  it  being  the  official 
preference  of  those  who  have  a  natural  priority  deriv- 
ed from  age  and  family  relations.  Under  the  present 
constitution  of  society,  as  under  that  which  was  pre- 
dominant in  apostolic  times  throughout  the  Koman 
empire,  the  same  ends,  which  were  answered  in  the  old 
theocracy  by  granting  power  to  the  chiefs  of  tribes 
and  houses,  are  accomplished  by  intrusting  it  to  those 
who  sustain  an  analogous  relation  to  society,  that  is,  to 
men  of  mature  age,  and  especially  to  actual  heads  of 
families.  In  either  case  the  great  end  is  accomplished 
of  bringing  the  church  under  the  same  influence  that 

*  The  Kingdom  of  Christ  Delineated.  By  Richard  Whately,  D.D., 
Archbishop  of  Dublin,    pp.  84-86  (American  edition). 


28  ESSAY   I. 

rules  the  families  of  which  it  is  composed.  Whether 
all  the  heads  of  families  were  clothed  with  this  author- 
ity, or  only  some  selected  for  the  purpose,  is  a  question 
of  detail,  not  at  all  affecting  principle,  and  one  which 
might  perhaps  admit  of  a  solution  varying  with  local 
and  other  unessential  circumstances.  One  thing,  how- 
ever, appears  certain,  as  an  inference  from  all  the  facts 
which  we  have  been  considering,  viz.,  that  while  some 
features  of  the  Jewish  polity  were  laid  aside  as  tem- 
porary, the  government  by  Elders  was  retained  as  a 
permanent  principle  of  organization  in  the  Christian 
Church.  And  here  we  meet  with  the  only  explanation 
of  the  fact  already  mentioned,  that  the  creation  of  the 
office  of  Elder  is  nowhere  recorded  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, as  in  the  case  of  Deacons  and  Apostles,  because 
the  latter  were  created  to  meet  new  and  special  exigen- 
cies, while  the  former  was  transmitted  from  the  ear- 
liest times.      In  other  words,   the  office  of  elder 

WAS  THE  ONLY  PERMANENT  ESSENTIAL  OFFICE  OF  THE 
CHURCH  UNDER  EITHER  DISPENSATION. 


ESSAY    II. 


ON   THE   POWEES   OF  THE   PRIMITIVE   PRESBYTERS. 

The  conclusion  reached  in  the  preceding  essay  may  be 
rendered  still  more  certain  by  exhibiting  direct  proof 
of  the  fact,  that  presbyters,  as  presbyters,  possessed 
and  exercised  the  highest  powers  now  belonging  to 
the  ministry,  even  in  apostolic  times,  from  which  we 
may  infer  a  fortiori^  that  the  same  authority  is  vested 
in  them  now. 

It  will  be  recollected,  that  the  presbyterial  ofl&ce  is 
coeval  with  the  church,  and  that  Paul  and  Barnabas, 
during  their  missionary  tour  in  Asia  Minor,  not  only 
planted  churches,  but  "  ordained  them  elders  in  every 
city."  If  then  we  can  discover  with  what  powers  these 
early  presbyters  were  clothed,  we  shall  establish  a  sure 
basis  for  our  subsequent  inquiries.  And  in  this  inves- 
tigation we  are  greatly  aided  by  the  preservation,  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  of  a  valedictory  address  by 
Paul  to  certain  persons  of  this  class,  when  he  was  leav- 
ing Greece  and  Asia  Minor  for  Jerusalem ;  in  which 
address,  we  find  not  only  strong  expressions  of  his  pri- 


30  ESSAY   II. 

vate  feelings,  and  allusions  to  his  ministerial  labours, 
but  advice  to  those  whom  he  addressed,  as  to  the  right 
discharge  of  their  oflEicial  duties.  It  affords  us,  there- 
fore, evidence,  as  to  the  functions  of  the  primitive 
elders,  which  is  none  the  less  interesting  or  instructive, 
because  furnished  incidentally. 

The  statement  here  referred  to  is  recorded  in  the 
twentieth  chapter  of  Acts,  where  we  read  that  "  Paul 
had  determined  to  sail  by  Ephesus,  because  he  would 
not  spend  the  time  in  Asia,"  "and  from  Miletus  he 
sent  to  Ephesus,  and  called  the  elders  of  the  church." 
When  they  were  come,  he  appealed  to  them  as  wit- 
nesses of  his  fidelity  to  the  churches  of  that  region,  in 
declaring  unto  them  all  the  counsel  of  God.  He  then 
announces  to  them  that  his  personal  connection  with 
them  was  dissolved  for  ever,  and  exhorts  them  to  the 
diligent  performance  of  the  duties  which  would  thence- 
forth be  peculiarly  incumbent  on  them.  And  in  so  do- 
ing, it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  he  makes  no  allusion  to 
the  intended  substitution  of  another  in  his  place,  as  their 
official  guide  and  counsellor,  but  speaks  to  them  pre- 
cisely as  he  might,  or  rather  must,  have  spoken,  on  the 
supposition,  that  from  that  time  forth  they  were  them- 
selves to  exercise  the  highest  powers  in  the  church  of 
Ephesus.  If  he  had  still  expected  them  to  act  as  mere 
inferiors  and  assistants,  he  would  naturally,  not  to  say 
necessarily,  have  comforted  their  grief  at  his  departure, 
by  the  promise  of  a  competent  successor,  and  in  warn- 
ing them  of  dangers  by  which  their  church  was  men- 
aced, would  of  course  have  exhorted  them  to  foithful 
and  diligent  co-operation  with  their  bishop.  But  the 
passage  contains  nothing  of  all  this;  a  circumstance 
which,  though  it  may  prove  little  by  itself,  as  to  the 


THE   PRIMITIVE   PRESBYTERS.  31 

organization  of  the  church  at  Ephesns,  at  least  justifies 
the  inference,  that  the  powers  here  ascribed  to  the 
Ephesian  presbyters  were  powers  to  be  exercised  in 
virtue  of  their  presbyterial  character,  and  not  by  dele- 
gation from  a  higher  class  of  permanent  church-offi- 
cers. For  if  the  apostle  could  direct  them  to  perform 
these  acts,  not  only  without  making  his  own  presence 
and  concurrence  a  prerequisite,  but  in  such  terms  as 
really  exclude  it,  how  much  less  reason  have  we  to  be- 
lieve, that  their  validity  was  meant  to  be  dependent  on 
the  sanction  of  a  bishop,  who  is  not  so  much  as  mention- 
ed, and  of  whose  existence  we  have  no  proof  elsewhere  ? 
Nor  is  this  a  mere  negative  deduction  from  Paul's 
silence,  as  to  any  superior  authority  at  Ephesus;  for 
the  same  thing  is  implied  in  the  choice  of  his  expres- 
sions. "  Take  heed,  therefore,  unto  yourselves," — 
therefore,  since  you  are  liow  to  be  deprived  of  the  ex- 
traordinary temporary  supervision  which  you  have 
enjoyed,  and  to  be  left  with  the  whole  burden  of  the 
church  upon  you ;  under  this  change  of  circumstances 
you  must  be  watchful  on  your  own  account,  not  only 
for  your  personal  safety  and  advantage,  but  for  that 
of  the  church  also — "  take  heed,  therefore,  unto  your- 
selves, and  to  all  the  flock,"  not  the  flock  of  another 
shepherd,  but  their  own,  for  which  they  were  di- 
rectly responsible — "  over  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
hath  made  you  overseers,"  iTriaKoirov'i  or  bishops. 
The  bearing  of  this  usage  of  the  term  upon  the  general 
question  of  episcopal  organization  need  not  be  discussed 
in  this  place.  All  that  it  is  necessary  here  to  notice  is, 
that  these  Ephesian  presbyters  were  shepherds  of  God's 
flock,  not  described  as  under-shepherds,  that  is,  as  the 
deputies  of  any  human  shepherd,  but  as  constituted 


32  ESSAY   II. 

such  by  God  himself^  and  that  not  merely  by  his  provi- 
dential dispensations,  but  by  a  special  designation  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  This  explicit  mention  of  the  jus  di- 
mnum  under  which  they  acted,  when  viewed  in  con- 
nection with  the  absence  of  all  reference  to  any  higher 
local  power^  either  actual  or  prospective,  makes  it  not 
only  improbable,  but  scarcely  possible,  that  what  they 
are  empowered  or  required  to  do,  was  to  be  done  by 
delegation,  or  in  any  other  way  than  by  direct  au- 
thority from  God  himself^  bestowed  upon  them  as  the 
highest  permanent  and  local  rulers  of  the  church  of 
Ephesus. 

With  these  views  of  the  character  in  which  the 
elders  are  addressed,  and  of  the  right  by  which  their 
fanctions  were  to  be  discharged,  let  us  now  endeavour 
to  determine,  in  the  same  way,  what  these  functions 
were.  The  answer  to  this  question  is  afforded  by  the 
words  immediately  succeeding  those  already  quoted. 
"  Take  heed,  therefore,  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the 
flock,  over  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you 
overseers,  to  feed  the  church  of  God,  which  he 
hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood."  As  the  church 
has  been  already  represented  as  a  flock,  the  official 
duty  of  these  elders  towards  it  is  described  by  a 
cognate  metaphor.  The  exact  correspondence  of  the 
terms  is  less  apparent  in  our  version  than  in  the  origi- 
nal, where  the  word  rendered  flock,  and  that  rendered 
to  feed,  are  collateral  derivatives  from  a  common  root, 
and  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  the  word  which 
means  a  shepherd.  To  the  verb,  both  etymology  and 
usage  give  the  sense,  not  of  feeding  merely,  but  of  act- 
ing as  a  shepherd,  doing  a  shepherd's  duty,  of  which  feed- 
ing is  a  most  essential  part,  but  not  by  any  means  the 


THE   PRIMITIVE   PRESBYTERS.  33 

whole,  since  it  would  either  be  impossible  or  unavail- 
ing, without  further  care  in  guiding  to  the  fold  and 
to  the  pasture,  in  collecting  and  reclaiming,  in  protect- 
ing from  the  weather  and  from  beasts  of  prey,  and  in 
other  slight  but  indispensable  attentions,  all  included 
in  the  literal  vocation  of  a  shepherd,  and  in  both  the 
literal  and  the  figurative  import  of  the  Greek  verb 
which  Paul  uses.  Unless  then  the  English  verb  to  feed 
be  taken  with  such  latitude  of  meaning  as  to  compre- 
hend all  this,  it  no  more  expresses  the  whole  duty  of  a 
shepherd  (as  the  Grreek  word  does),  than  the  verb,  to 
shoot  describes  the  business  of  a  soldier  or  a  hunter,  or 
to  plough  that  of  a  farmer.  It  is  highly  important  that 
our  exposition  of  this  passage  should  be  wholly  unaf- 
fected by  a  prejudice,  connected  only  with  the  English 
version,  and  arising  from  its  failure  to  express  the  full 
sense  of  Paul's  phraseology.  Even  when  figuratively 
used,  the  verb  Trot/iatW  is  employed  by  the  Greek 
writers  to  denote  not  merely  nourishment  but  care^  in 
the  most  extensive  sense  of  the  expression,  such  care 
as  faithful  shepherds  give  to  helpless  and  dependent 
flocks.  If  then  the  church  at  Ephesus  was  a  spiritual 
flock,  and  these  its  elders  were  spiritual  shepherds,  the 
duty  here  enjoined  upon  them  is  not  merely  that  of 
feeding  them  with  knowledge,  by  public  and  private 
teaching,  but  also  that  of  governing,  controlling,  and 
protecting  them,  as  well  from  the  effects  of  internal 
corruption,  as  from  those  of  violence  and  fraud  ah 
extra.  It  is,  m  short,  a  metaphorical  description  of  the 
ministerial  oflice,  in  its  whole  extent,  as  comprehend- 
ing all  that  is  essential  to  the  continued  existence  of 
the  church,  and  the  attainment  of  the  ends  for  which 
it  was  established,  just  as  the  business  of  a  shepherd 

2* 


34  ESSAY  n, 

comprehends  all  that  is  necessary  to  the  safety  and 
well-being  of  the  flock.  There  is  no  more  reason  in 
the  text  itself,  for  excluding  any  of  the  ministerial 
functions  from  the  figurative  import  of  the  verb  Trot- 
fialvecv,  than  there  is  for  excluding  some  things  in 
the  nature  and  condition  of  the  church  from  the  figu- 
rative import  of  the  substantive  ttoi/juviov  }  if  the  latter 
is  a  general  description  of  the  church,  the  former  is  a 
general  description  of  the  ministry,  its  duties  and  its 
powers.  And  this,  which  is  the  natural  and  obvious 
meaning  of  the  figurative  terms  which  the  apostle  uses, 
agrees,  in  all  points,  with  his  subsequent  expressions. 
"  For  I  know  this,  that  after  my  departing  shall  griev- 
ous wolves" — a  common  figure  for  false  teachers — 
"  enter  in  among  }'0U,  not  sparing  the  flock.  Also  of 
your  own  selves  shall  men  arise,  speaking  perverse 
things,  to  draw  away  disciples  after  them."  These  are 
the  two  great  evils,  with  which  the  church  was  threat- 
ened, error  of  doctrine,  and  schism  as  the  consequence ; 
for  this  is  the  relative  position  of  the  two  things,  as 
described  in  Scripture,  not  the  converse,  as  maintained 
by  those  who  make  purity  of  doctrine  to  depend  upon 
external  regularity,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter.  To  pre- 
vent these  evils,  whether  threatened  from  within  or 
from  without,  and  to  prevent  them,  not  by  private 
effort  merely,  but  by  authoritative  action,  is  distinctly 
made  the  duty  of  the  presbyters  of  Ephesus. 

That  the  apostle  refers  not  to  personal  but  ofl&cial 
influence,  appears  from  the  solemn  mention  of  their 
designation  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  with  which  he  prefaces 
his  exhortation.  There  would  be  something  quite  in- 
congruous in  making  the  divine  right  of  these  presby- 
ters the  ground  of  an  injunction  which  was  equally 


THE  PRIMITIVE   PRESBYTERS.  35 

binding  upon  all  true  Christians.  This  would  be  tan- 
tamount to  saying,  since  the  Holy  Ghost  has  placed 
you  in  high  official  station,  be  assiduous  in  personal 
and  private  duties.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  refer- 
ence is  clearly  to  the  influence  exerted  by  these  pres- 
byters, as  such,  and  in  the  exercise  of  their  distinctive 
functions,  then  the  question  meets  us.  How  could  they 
comply  with  this  injunction,  unless  they  were  in- 
trusted with  the  keys  both  of  discipline  and  doctrine, 
with  the  power,  not  of  teaching  merely,  but  of  main- 
taining purity  of  doctrine,  by  deciding  controversies, 
trying  heretics,  silencing  false  teachers,  and  excluding 
from  the  ministry  all  such  as  were  esteemed  by  them 
unfaithful  or  unfit  ?  But  these  are  acts  supposing  the 
possession  of  the  highest  powers  now  belonging  to  the 
ministry,  not  merely  those  of  preaching  and  of  ordi- 
nary pastoral  control,  but  also  those  of  ministerial  dis- 
cipline and  ordination. 

It  may  be  objected,  that  the  duty,  to  which  the 
elders,  in  the  next  verse,  are  specifically  called,  is  not 
that  of  judging  or  of  acting  with  authority,  but  merely 
that  of  watching  and  remembering  his  former  admoni- 
tions, and  that  this  implies  the  existence  of  a  higher 
power,  which  alone  was  competent  to  check  the  evil. 
But  if  this  be  so,  how  is  it  that  he  does  not  even  men- 
tion or  allude  to  such  superior  power  ?  It  cannot  be 
imagined,  that  he  merely  meant  to  terrify  the  elders 
by  predicting  future  evils  to  the  church,  without  sug- 
gesting a  preventive  or  a  remedy  ;  and  yet  this  is  un- 
doubtedly the  case,  if  those  whom  he  addresses  could 
do  nothing  more  than  watch  and  bear  in  mind  his 
warnings.  If  it  be  said,  that  the  elders  must  have 
been  aware  of  the  existence  of  these  "  higher  powers," 


36  ESSAY   II. 

and  needed  not  to  be  informed  of  it  by  Paul,  it  then 
becomes  impossible  to  understand  wh}^  he  addressed 
his  exhortations  to  the  presbyters,  and  not  to  their 
superiors,  who  alone  had  power  to  prevent  or  remedy 
the  threatened  evil.  Nor  can  this  difficulty  be  removed 
by  taking  it  for  granted,  first,  that  there  was  a  bishop- 
ric of  Ephesas,  above  the  eldership,  and  then  that  it 
was  vacant,  so  that  Paul  was  under  the  necessity,  at 
this  time,  of  addressing  the  "  inferior  clergy."  For  in 
that  case  he  could  hardly  have  omitted  all  allusion  to 
the  fact  assumed,  and  all  injunction  to  obey  the  bishop, 
when  he  should  be  sent,  and  co-operate  with  him  for 
the  prevention  of  the  evils  to  be  feared  ;  whereas,  he 
seems,  as  we  have  seen,  to  throw  the  whole  responsi- 
bility upon  the  elders,  and  addresses  them  precisely  as 
he  must  have  done,  if  he  expected  and  intended  the 
entire  care  of  the  Ephesian  church  to  be  devolved  on 
them.  To  take  the  contrary  for  granted,  in  despite  of 
the  obvious  tenor  of  Paul's  language,  is,  in  effect,  to 
destroy  the  value  of  all  proof  derived  from  language, 
except  in  the  case  of  an  explicit,  categorical  assertion, 
which  is  granted,  upon  all  sides,  to  be  wanting  here. 
A  simple  test  of  probability,  in  this  case,  is  afforded 
by  the  fact,  that  no  one,  reading  the  apostle's  exhorta- 
tion, either  could  or  would  derive  from  it  the  notion 
of  an  ecclesiastical  authority  at  Ephesus,  above  that  of 
the  presbyters,  to  whom  the  exhortation  is  addressed; 
and  on  the  other  hand,  that  no  one  so  reading  it, 
could  fail  to  gather  from  it,  in  itself  considered,  that 
these  elders  were  invested  with  official  right  and  power 
to  prevent  or  to  redress  the  evils  here  predicted. 

The  truth  is,  that  the  other  supposition  rests  upon 
the  foregone  conclusion,   that  a  prelatical   authority. 


THE   PRIMITIVE   PKESBYTERS.  87 

distinct  from  the  presbyterate,  did  certainly  exist  at 
Ephesus,  and  that  the  subjection  of  the  elders  to  it  is 
implied  or  presupposed  in  the  apostle's  exhortation. 
But,  those  who  deny  that  any  proof  of  such  autho- 
rity exists  in  any  quarter,  and  interpret  Paul's  lan- 
guage by  itself  and  by  the  context,  without  refer- 
ence to  any  preconceived  hypothesis  whatever,  will  be 
forced  to  the  conclusion,  that  he  here  addresses  the 
Ephesian  elders  as  the  rulers  of  the  church,  and  that 
when  he  exhorts  them  to  be  watchful  and  remember, 
he  refers  not  to  private  but  official  vigilance,  and  to 
such  a  recollection  of  his  warnings  as  would  lead  to 
the  due  exercise  of  their  authority  in  quenching  the 
insidious  fires  of  heresy  and  schism,  which  they  could 
not  do  without  possessing  all  the  power  which  a  bishop, 
or  derivative  apostle,  on  the  opposite  hypothesis,  could 
possibly  have  exercised.  The  objection  to  the  argu- 
ment from  this  address  of  Paul,  that  it  does  not  ascribe 
to  the  Ephesian  elders  the  specific  powers  of  discipline 
and  ordination,  proves  too  much  ;  for  it  would  prove 
that  they  were  not  even  authorized  to  preach  or  to 
administer  the  sacraments,  since  these  are  not  specifi- 
cally mentioned,  though  included  in  the  figurative 
meaning  of  Troc/xalveii',  which,  however,  includes  more, 
and  is  descriptive  of  the  ministerial  work  in  general, 
as  we  have  seen  already.  The  apostle  speaks  of  them, 
either  as  having  all  the  ministerial  powers,  or  as  hav- 
ing none ;  because  the  terms  which  he  employs  are 
those  of  general  description,  not  minute  specification, 
and  must  either  be  descriptive  of  the  office  as  a  whole, 
or  not  at  all. 

But  even  granting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
Trotfjbaivetv  merely  means  to  feed,  and  that  feeding  is  a 


88  ESSAY  II. 

metaphor  for  preaching  and  the  sacraments,  it  does 
not  follow,  that  the  powers  of  discipline  and  ordina- 
tion, although  not  specifically  mentioned,  are  excluded. 
It  is  clear,  not  only  that  the  whole  includes  its  parts, 
but  also  that  the  greater  may  include  the  less.  As  the 
general  ascription  of  the  ministerial  powers  to  these 
elders  would  imply  that  they  possessed  each  separately, 
so  too  the  ascription  of  a  higher  ministerial  power 
might  imply  that  they  possessed  a  lower.  Now  disci- 
pline and  ordination,  it  will  be  admitted,  derive  their 
value  from  the  ends  which  they  promote,  and  which 
they  were  intended  to  secure.  The  end  of  discipline 
is  to  preserve  purity,  and  to  exclude  the  unworthy 
from  the  privileges  of  the  church.  The  end  of  ordi- 
nation is  to  secure  a  valid  ministration  of  the  word  and 
sacraments.  But  the  word  and  the  sacraments  them- 
selves have  an  independent  and  intrinsic  value.  If  the 
power  of  dispensing  them  had  been  conferred  on  any 
who  thought  proper  to  make  use  of  it,  without  any 
special  ordination  to  an  office,  whatever  inconveniences 
might  have  attended  that  arrangement,  it  could  not' 
have  impaired  the  intrinsic  value  of  the  word  and 
sacraments.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  there  were  no 
word  or  sacraments,  ordination  would  be  useless.  And 
the  same  may  be  said,  mutatis  mutandis,  as  to  govern- 
ment or  discipline.  These  then,  to  wit,  ordination 
and  discipline,  are  subsidiary  functions,  which  derive 
their  value  from  the  relation  they  sustain  to  others. 
The  possession  of  these  powers,  therefore,  might  have 
been  inferred  from  the  possession  of  the  higher  powers 
upon  which  they  are  dependent,  even  if  the  latter  had 
alone  been  mentioned.  But  the  fact,  as  we  have  seen 
already,  is,  that  all  the  powers  of  the  ministry  collec- 


THE   PRIMITIVE   PRESBYTERS.  39 

tively  are  comprehended  in  the  metaphor  of  acting  as 
a  shepherd  to  the  flock  of  Christ. 

If  it  should  be  alleged  in  this  case,  as  it  has  been  in 
some  others,  that  the  powers,  apparently  ascribed  to  pres- 
byters, were  really  intended  to  be  exercised  by  bishops, 
here  included  under  the  generic  name  of  elders,  it  may 
be  replied,  that  such  a  mode  of  reasoning  precludes  the 
possibility  of  proving  any  thing,  except  so  far  as  the 
opposing  party  may  think  proper  to  allow  it.  If  the 
ascription  of  a  certain  power  to  a  certain  class  of  offi- 
cers, distinctly  named,  is  not  a  proof  of  their  possessing 
it,  the  fact  is  not  susceptible  of  proof  at  all.  And  this 
extraordinary  process,  let  it  be  observed,  is  equally 
available  on  either  side  of  a  disputed  question.  If  one 
man  may  explain  away  the  acts  ascribed  to  presbyters 
as  the  exclusive  acts  of  bishops,  then  another  may  ex- 
plain away  the  acts  ascribed  to  deacons  as  the  ex- 
clusive acts  of  presbyters.  It  should  also  be  ob- 
served, that  if  one  of  the  official  acts  ascribed  to  pres- 
byters may  be  explained  away  as  the  exclusive  act  of 
a  superior  order,  any  other  of  the  acts  so  ascribed  may 
be  explained  in  the  same  manner.  If,  when  presby- 
ters are  spoken  of  as  exercising  all  the  ministerial 
powers,  one  may  argue  that  bishops  are  the  only  elders 
who  are  thus  empowered  to  ordain,  another  may,  with 
equal  right,  allege  that  bishops  are  the  only  elders 
authorized  to  preach  or  to  baptize,  and  that  the  primi- 
tive presbyters  did  neither,  b}'  themselves  or  in  their 
own  right,  but  merely  united,  as  assessors,  in  the 
preaching  and  baptizing  acts  of  their  superiors  in  office. 
To  an  argument  which  naturally  leads  to  such  results, 
it  is  sufficient  to  oppose  a  simple  negative,  by  saying 
that  as  bishops  or  apostles  are  not  mentioned  in  the 


40  ESSAY   II. 

text,  the  ofl&cial  acts  ascribed  to  presbyters  were  meant 
to  be  considered  as  performed  by  them  alone  in  that 
capacity.  When  therefore  Paul  describes  the  presby- 
ters of  Ephesus  as  having  been  divinely  called  to  act 
as  shepherds  of  God's  flock,  we  must  regard  it  as  a 
proof  that  all  the  powers  of  the  ministry,  including 
those  of  discipline  and  ordination,  were  possessed  and 
exercised  by  elders,  even  in  the  days  of  the  apostles. 

A  large  part  of  what  has  now  been  said  applies, 
with  equal  force,  to  1  Tim.  5 :  17,  where  the  same  apostle 
speaks,  on  a  different  occasion,  not  only  of  the  same  of- 
fice, but  of  the  same  men,  not  onlj^  of  elders  in  general, 
but  of  Ephesian  elders  in  particular.  Assuming  that 
7rpecr/3vTepoL  is  here  a  name  of  office,  it  cannot  be  de- 
scriptive of  the  oflice  of.  apostle  or  apostle-bishop, 
partly  for  the  reason  above  given  in  another  case, 
that  the  assumption  is  entirely  gratuitous,  partly  be- 
cause Timothy,  according  to  the  adverse  theory,  would 
then  be  represented  as  a  hyper-apostolical  church-offi- 
cer, not  only  equal  but  superior  to  Paul,  who  was 
merely  an  apostle.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  word 
denotes  presbyters  or  elders,  in  the  proper  sense,  then 
the  apostle  must  be  speaking  of  the  powers  which  be- 
longed to  them  in  that  capacity,  and  not  as  the  mere 
agents  of  a  higher  power.  That  no  superiority  of 
Timothy  to  these  Ephesian  elders  is  implied  in  the 
apostle's  words,  will  be  proved  in  another  place,  and 
may  be  here  assumed. 

Since  then  it  is  of  elders  that  he  speaks,  and  of 
elders  acting  in  their  own  right,  we  have  only  to 
inquire  what  official  functions  are  ascribed  to  them, 
in  order  to  determine  what  were  the  powers  of  a 
presbyter  or  elder  in   apostolic  times.     "Let  the  el- 


THE   PRIMITIVE   PRESBYTERS.  41 

DERS  THAT  RULE  well  be  Counted  worthy  of  double 
honour."  They  are  here  distinctly  recognized  as  rulers 
in  the  church,  and  this  must  surely  comprehend  the 
right  of  discipline,  if  not  of  ordination.  It  may  be  said, 
however,  that  Trpoeo-Twre?  merely  means  presiding, 
holding  the  first  place  in  the  society,  and  therefore 
denotes  relative  position,  but  not  office  or  official  power. 
It  will  scarcely  be  disputed,  however,  that  irpea^vrepoL 
denotes  official  rank ;  and  whether  Trpoea-rMra  does  not 
signify  the  exercise  of  an  official  power,  is  a  question 
which  can  only  be  determined  by  a  reference  to  usage. 
In  Eom.  12  :  8,  6  TrpotcrTa/Ltevo?  cannot  denote  mere  pri- 
ority of  rank  or  conspicuous  position,  for  two  reasons  : 
first,  because  a  man  could  not  be  exhorted  to  hold 
such  a  position  with  diligence  ;  and  secondly,  because 
all  the  other  terms  connected  with  it  signify  specific  ac- 
tions. The  same  thing  is  evident  from  the  collocation 
of  Trpoiara/xevovi  in  1  Thess.  5 :  12,  between  K0Tri6ivra<; 
and  vov'^erovvra^^  both  denoting  specific  functions  of 
the  ministry.  In  1  Tim.  3 :  4,  the  bishop  is  described 
as  one  that  ruleth  well  (/caXw?  Trpoiard/xevov)  his  own 
house,  which  can  hardly  mean  one  who  holds  the  first 
place  in  it,  without  any  original  jurisdiction  over  it. 
Let  the  sense  which  TrpotaTrj/xL  evidently  has  in  all 
these  cases,  be  applied  to  that  before  us,^  and  it  follows 
of  course,  that  presbyters  or  bishops  are  here  spoken 
of  as  ruling  the  church,  just  as  really  as  they  are  else- 
where said  to  rule  their  families.  That  the  govern- 
ment referred  to  is  that  of  the  church,  appears  from 
what  follows  in  the  same  verse,  as  to  labouring  in  word 
and  doctrine.'  If,  then,  Trpea/Burepoi  is  here  a  name  of 
office,  which  will  scarcely  be  denied  by  those,  who 
use  this  text  to  prove  Timothy's  superiority  to  presby- 


42  ESSAY   II. 

ters,  tlien  the  officers  described  by  it  are  clearly  recog- 
nized as  rulers  in  the  church,  without  any  reference 
whatever  to  a  superior  human  power.  Where  shall  we 
find  an  equally  distinct  ascription  of  the  ruling  power 
to  apostles,  not  of  the  original  thirteen  ? 

Here  then  are  two  passages,  in  which  the  same 
apostle  speaks  of  the  Ephesian  elders,  first  metaphori- 
cally as  the  shepherds  of  Christ's  flock,  then  literally 
as  the  rulers  of  the  church.  Whatever  doubt  might 
be  supposed  to  rest  upon  the  meaning  of  the  terms 
employed,  in  either  case,  may  be  disposed  of  by  com- 
paring them  together.  That  Trot/xalveiv  does  not  mere- 
ly denote /eec^m^r,  whether  literal  or  spiritual,  but  the 
whole  extent  of  the  pastoral  care,  including  govern- 
ment, may  now  be  argued  from  the  Tr/ooeo-Tcore?  of  the 
parallel  passage.  And  that  Tr/aoea-Tcore?,  on  the  other 
hand,  includes  the  powers  of  discipline  and  ordination, 
is  rendered  still  more  probable  by  Paul's  exhorting 
these  same  elders,  in  the  other  case,  to  duties  which 
imply  the  possession  of  these  powers.  The  two  texts, 
taken  in  conjunction,  so  as  to  explain  each  other,  war- 
rant us  in  stating  as  a  general  fact,  that  the  Ephesian 
elders  are  twice  spoken  of  by  Paul  as  rulers  of  the 
church,  without  any  intimation  that  the  power  of  ordi- 
nation is  to  be  excepted,  or  that  they  acted  in  subjec- 
tion to  a  bishop. 

Now  the  terms  of  this  description  must  be  applica- 
ble, either  to  presbyters  in  general,  or  to  the  pres- 
byters of  Ephesus  exclusively.  The  latter  supposition 
would  impl}^,  that  there  was  no  uniformity  in  primitive 
church-government,  the  same  class  of  officers  possessing 
different  powers  in  different  cases,  an  hypothesis  de- 
structive of  all  arguments  against  presbyterian  orders, 


THE   PEIMITIVE   PRESBYTEES.  43 

founded  on  alleged  deviations  from  the  apostolic  model. 
We  have  moreover  a  direct  proof  that  this  organiza- 
tion was  a  general  one  in  the  first  epistle  of  Peter, 
where  he  addresses  the  elders,  not  of  one  church  mere- 
ly, but  of  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bi- 
thynia;  calls  himself  their  fellow-elder,  and  exhorts 
them  to  "feed  the  flock  of  God  " — the  same  expression 
used  by  Paul  to  the  Ephesian  elders — "taking  the 
oversight  thereof,  not  by  constraint  but  willingly,  not 
for  filthy  lucre,  but  of  a  ready  mind ;  neither  as  being 
lords  over  God's  heritage," — implying  that  they  were 
under  a  temptation  so  to  do,  which  could  scarcely 
be  the  case,  if  they  were  mere  assessors  to  a  bishop 
— "  and  when  the  chief  shepherd  shall  appear" — this 
clearly  implies  that  they  were  under-shepherds  only 
to  the  head  of  the  church- — -"ye  shall  receive  a  crown 
of  glory  that  fadeth  not  away."  If  it  can  be  supposed 
that  all  the  churches  of  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia, 
Asia,  and  Bithynia,  were  accidentally  deprived  of 
bishops  at  this  time,  it  would  go  far  to  prove  that  the 
privation  was  a  matter  of  but  little  moment.  If,  how- 
ever, this  description  has  respect  to  presbyters  in  gene- 
ral, we  have  proof  that  the  primitive  presbyters  were 
rulers  of  the  church,  and  no  proof  that  discipline  and 
ordination  were  excepted  from  their  powers. 

With  the  general  view,  which  we  have  thus 
obtained  from  Scripture,  of  the  presbyterial  office 
as  a  whole,  let  us  now  compare  the  more  specific  lan- 
guage of  the  apostle  Paul  to  Timothy:  "Neglect 
not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee 
by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
presbytery"  (1  Tim.  4  :  14).  If  this  does  not  relate  to 
ordination,  there  can  be  no  reason  for  supposing  that 


44  ESSAY   II. 

the  parallel  passage  in  2  Tim.  1 :  6  relates  to  ordina- 
tion ;  and  as  the  transaction  recorded  in  Acts  18  :  1-3 
was  nothing  more  than  a  solemn  designation  to  a  spe- 
cial service,  the  result  is,  that  we  have  in  the  New 
Testament  no  proof  that  any  rite  of  ordination  was 
considered  necessary,  nor  any  instance  of  its  having 
been  performed,  the  word  sometimes  rendered  by  the 
English  verb  "ordain"  being  a  general  expression  for 
the  act  of  constituting  or  appointing.  So  far,  then,  from 
the  act  of  ordination,  as  distinct  from  that  of  designa- 
tion or  appointment,  being  formally  reserved,  as  the 
peculiar  prerogative  of  a  superior  order  in  the  minis- 
try, it  does  not  seem  to  have  been  used  at  all,  and  the 
general  terms  in  which  the  presbyters  are  spoken 
of,  as  rulers  of  the  church,  are  to  be  understood  as 
comprehending  all  the  powers  necessary  to  its  mainte- 
nance and  government.  But  even  granting  that  the 
text  relates  to  ordination  in  the  proj^er  sense,  it  has 
been  alleged  that  the  ordaining  act  is  not  ascribed  to 
presbyters,  as  such,  but  to  apostles.  In  support  of 
this  assertion,  very  different  positions  have  been  taken. 
In  the  first  place  it  has  been  alleged,  that  the  presby- 
tery may  have  consisted  wholly  of  apostles.  Not  to 
reiterate  the  reasons  which  have  been  already  given, 
for  resisting  all  gratuitous  assumptions,  tending  to  re- 
verse the  natural  import  of  language,  and  to  render 
proof  impossible,  we  answer  this  objection  by  a  coun- 
ter allegation,  that  the  presbytery  may  have  consisted 
wholly  of  mere  presbyters.  The  two  possibilities  will 
balance  one  another,  and  in  choosing  between  them, 
the  word  irpea^vTepiov  must  have  due  weight.  It  is 
certainly  more  likely,  in  the  absence  of  explicit  proof, 
that  Trpecr/SvTeptov^  if  it  means  a  body  of  men  at  all, 


THE   PRIMITIVE   PRESBYTERS.  45 

means  a  body  of  mere  presbyters,  than  that  it  means 
a  body  of  apostles.  The  apostles,  being  presbyters, 
might  be  included  in  the  name ;  but  as  they  had  a 
distinctive  title  of  their  own,  it  is  natural  to  suppose, 
that  if  their  distinctive  functions  were  the  subject  of 
discourse,  their  distinctive  title  would  be  used,  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  that  when  the  generic  title  is  employ- 
ed, the  functions  spoken  of  are  not  the  peculiar  func- 
tions of  apostles,  as  apostles,  but  those  which  are  com- 
mon to  them  and  presbyters.  Or  even  if  irpea^vripiov 
here  denotes  apostles,  the  use  of  the  name  in  this  con- 
nection shows  that  it  was  in  the  character  of  presby- 
ters that  they  ordained.  It  seems  incredible  that  if 
they  held  two  offices,  a  higher  and  a  lower,  those  acts 
which  they  performed  by  virtue  of  the  former  should 
be  connected  with  the  title  of  the  latter.  The  bishops 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  are  in  some  cases 
rectors  of  particular  parishes.  When  we  read,  there- 
fore, of  a  man  as  rector  of  a  certain  church,  we  may 
be  reading  of  a  bishop ;  but  no  one  acquainted  with 
the  true  facts  of  the  case  would  speak  of  a  bishop  by 
the  other  title,  when  ascribing  to  him  acts  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  customs  of  that  church,  could  only  be 
performed  by  him  as  bishop.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  official  record  of  a  baptism,  as  having  been  ad- 
ministered by  the  rector  of  a  church,  would  be  re- 
garded as  conclusive  evidence  that  parochial  clergy- 
men have  power  to  baptize ;  nor  would  it  be  invali- 
dated by  the  allegation,  that  as  the  rector  in  question 
was  a  bishop,  it  was  in  the  latter  character  alone 
that  he  baptized ;  much  less  by  the  suggestion  that 
he  may  have  been  a  bishop,  and  that  ordinary  rec- 
tors therefore  •  had  no  such  authority.      If,  then,  the 


46  ESSAY  II. 

apostles  are  here  mentioned  as  ordainers,  and  as  form- 
ing a  Trpea-jBvTepiov  for  the  purpose,  it  must  have  been 
in  the  character  of  presbyters  that  they  ordained. 
Supposing,  then,  that  irpea^vrepiov  means  a  body  of 
men,  it  matters  not  of  whom  it  was  composed  ;  for, 
whatever  else  they  may  have  been,  they  must  have 
been  presbyters,  and  as  such  they  ordained. 

To  escape  from  this  dilemma,  it  has  been  alleged, 
that  Trpeaj3vTepiov  denotes,  not  the  ordainers,  but  the 
of&ce  of  a  presbyter.  To  this  there  are  two  very  se- 
rious objections.  In  the  first  place,  the  construction 
is  unusual  and  unnatural,  the  laying  on  of  the  hands 
of  an  office.  According  to  all  usage  and  analogy,  the 
genitive  after  %et/owi^  must  denote  the  persons  to  whom 
the  hands  belonged,  and  by  whom  the  imposition  was 
performed.  Can  it  be  fortuitous  that,  out  of  more 
than  a  hundred  other  cases,  in  which  some  form  of 
p^et/3  is  followed  in  construction  by  the  genitive,  there 
is  not  one  in  which  it  can  be  supposed  to  signify  any 
thing  except  the  person  whose  h;aids  are  mentioned? 
Or  can  it  be  supposed,  that  the  relation  of  roit  irpea^v- 
repiov  to  ^eipoyv^  in  the  case  before  us,  is  different  from 
that  of  [xov  to  the  same  word,  in  the  precisely  parallel 
expression,  2  Tim.  1 :  G  ?  The  other  objection  to  this 
interpretation  of  the  word  is,  that  in  the  only  other 
places  where  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  (Luke  22  : 
&^).  Acts  22  :  5),  it  means,  and  can  mean,  nothing 
but  a  body  of  irpea-^vTepoi.  Before  we  can  explain 
it  of  the  office,  therefore,  we  must  adopt,  first,  an 
unnatural  and  unparalleled  construction,  and  then,  an 
unauthorized  meaning  of  the  principal  word.  That 
is  to  say,  it  cannot  be  so  explained  without  doing  vio- 
lence both  to  lexicography  and  grammar. 


THE    PRIMITIVE    PRESBYTEES.  47 

But  there  is  still  another  method  of  evading  the 
conclusion,  that  presbyters  are  here  represented  as  or- 
daining. This  is  by  asserting,  that  even  if  TrpeajSvre- 
piov  does  mean  a  body  of  elders,  /xera  does  not  mean 
hy  but  ivith^  denoting  mere  participation,  not  authori- 
tative action,  so  that  presbyters  are  not  represBnted  as 
ordaining,  but  merely  as  joining  in  the  ordination. 
This  view  of  the  passage  takes  for  granted,  first,  that 
the  preposition  cannot  mean  hy^  but  must  mean  ivith ; 
and  then,  that  if  it  does  mean  witli^  it  must  connect  the 
action  of  the  presbyters,  as  mere  assessors,  with  the 
authoritative  act  of  the  apostles,  as  ordainers.  Both 
these  assumptions  are  entirely  unauthorized.  The 
Greek  /Ltera,  like  the  English  with^  has  sometimes  the 
secondary  sense  of  hy^  hy  means  of.  The  origin  of  this 
secondary  meaning  seems  to  be,  that  the  agent  acts 
with  his  instrument,  in  the  strict  sense,  i.  e.  in  com- 
pany with  it ;  and  thus  the  preposition,  which  strictly 
conveys  this  idea  only,  conveys  by  implication  that  of 
instrumentality.  The  transition  from  the  one  sense  to 
the  other  may  be  seen  in  such  expressions  as  the  fol- 
lowing: "Pursue  him  with  the  sword,  and  then  de- 
stroy him  with  the  sword."  In  the  first  phrase,  with 
denotes  merely  that  the  sword  is  to  accompany  the 
pursuers ;  in  the  second,  it  denotes,  that  the  sword  is 
the  instrument,  by  which  they  are  to  act.  This  ety- 
mological analysis  ^s  confirmed  by  the  usage  of  the 
New  Testament.  "Thou  shalt  make  me  full  of  joy 
with  {tierd)  thy  countenance"  (Acts  2  :  28).  This 
cannot  mean  'thou,  together  with  thy  countenance, 
shalt  make  me  full  of  joy' — -nor,  'thou  shalt  make  me, 
together  with  thy  countenance,  full  of  joy' — but  'thou, 
by  means  of  thy  countenance  (or  presence),  shalt  make 


48  ESSAY   II, 

me  full  of  joy.'  The  same  thing,  in  substance,  may  be 
said  of  Acts  18 :  ]  7,  "  and  loith  an  high  arm  brought 
he  them  out  of  it."  In  Acts  14:  27  we  read,  that  when 
Paul  and  Barnabas  returned  to  Antioch,  "they  gath- 
ered the  church  together  and  rehearsed  all  that  Grod 
had  done  with  them  {fxer  avTwv),^^  and  again,  Acts 
15:4,  "they  declared  all  things  that  God  had  done 
with  them."  This  does  not  mean  "to  them,"  as  it 
might  possibly  in  English,  because  even  if  fjuerd  is 
used  elsewhere  in  that  sense,  the  context  here  shows 
that  the  historian  means  what  God  had  done  to  the 
Gentiles  by  them  or  through  them,  as  his  instruments. 
These  examples  will  suffice  to  show,  that  fiera  may 
mean  by,  as  well  as  with,  and  that  it  is  not,  therefore, 
to  be  taken  for  granted,  that  it  here  expresses  a  differ- 
ent kind  of  action. 

Granting,  however,  that  it  does  mean  with,  in 
the  strict  sense,  what  two  things  does  it  connect? 
The  imposition  of  hands  with  what?  The  ad- 
verse argument  assumes,  not  only  that  it  may,  but 
that  it  must,  connect  the  imposition  of  hands  by 
the  presbytery  with  the  ordaining  act  of  the  apostle, 
which  is  not  mentioned  at  all.  Now  if  any  rule  of 
construction  can  be  looked  upon  as  fixed,  it  is,  that 
what  is  expressed,  other  things  being  equal,  must  be 
preferred  to  what  is  not  expressed  but  merely  conjec- 
tured or  supposed.  According  to  this  principle,  yu-era, 
if  it  merely  means  together  with,  must  connect  the  impo- 
sition of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery  with  the  prophecy 
or  revelation,  mentioned  just  before.  How  was  the 
gift  conferred  on  Timothy?  By  means  of  a  divine 
communication.  Sea  7rpo(f)r]Teia<i.  By  that  alone  ?  No, 
but  by  that,  together  with  the  laying  on  of  hands,  which 


THE   PKIMITIVE   PRESBYTERS,  49 

is  essentially  equivalent  to  saying,  '  by  revelation  and 
the  imposition  of  hands.'  Whatever  force  the  Sta  has 
in  relation  to  irpo^-qreia'^  it  has  in  relation  to  eVt^e- 
crea)?,  the  ix^ra  serving  merely  to  connect  them. 

We  are  then  reduced  to  this  alternative.  If  yttera 
is  a  mere  connective,  it  connects  7rpo(f)7]reLa<;  with  eVi- 
^ecre&)9,  and  implies  that  the  ordination  was  as  much 
effected  by  the  one  as  by  the  other,  or  that  both  were 
alike  instruments  or  channels  of  communication,  by 
which  the  gift  of  God  was  conveyed  to  Timothy.  But 
if  fi€rd  is  more  than  a  connective,  and  itself  denotes  hy 
means  of,  then  the  act  of  the  presbytery  is  itself  de- 
scribed as  the  medium  or  instrument  of  ordination. 
On  the  whole,  then,  it  appears,  that  unless  we  give  to 
TTpea/SuTepiov  a  meaning  which  it  has  not  elsewhere, 
and  connect  it  with  the  words  before  it  in  a  manner 
which  is  utterly  at  variance  with  the  usage  of  the  lan- 
guage, or  assume,  without  necessity  or  right,  that  it 
here  denotes  a  body  of  apostles,  or  that  the  action  of 
apostles,  although  not  expressed,  is  understood,  and 
that  of  the  presbytery  made  dependent  on  it,  we  are 
under  the  necessity  of  drawing  the  conclusion,  that 
presbyters,  in  apostolic  times,  ordained.  And  this, 
which  is  the  only  exposition  of  the  text  that  harmo- 
nizes fully  with  the  usage  of  the  words  and  with  the 
principles  of  grammar,  that  supposes  nothing  and  ima- 
gines nothing,  but  allows  the  text  to  speak  for  itself, 
is  moreover  recommended  by  its  perfect  agi'eement 
with  the  natural  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  passages 
before  considered,  in  which  presbyters  are  spoken  of 
as  bearing  the  whole  burden  of  church  government, 
and  called  to  duties  which  imply  the  power  not  only 
of  discipline  but  of  ordination. 
3 


50  ESSAY   II. 

But  altliougli  these  passages  contain  enougli  to 
warrant  the  conclusion,  that  the  primitive  presbyters 
possessed  and  exercised  the  highest  powers  now  be- 
longing to  the  ministry,  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  this 
conclusion  would  be  rendered  more  completely  satisfy- 
ing, if  it  were  possible  to  cite  a  case,  in  which  there 
could  be  no  dispute  or  doubt,  in  relation  either  to  the 
acts  described,  or  to  the  persons  represented  as  per- 
forming them,  on  both  which  points  there  is  some  room 
for  diversity  of  judgment  in  the  cases  just  considered, 
though  the  balance  of  probabilities  appears  to  be  deci- 
dedly in  favour  of  the  ground  already  stated.  But 
this  preponderance  would  be  rendered  more  decided 
and  conspicuous  by  the  collateral  evidence  even  of  a 
single  case,  in  which  all  parties  could  agree  that  cer- 
tain persons  are  described  as  exercising  certain  powers. 
Now  there  happens  to  be  not  only  one  case  of  the 
kind  supposed,  but  two,  which  require  to  be  distinctly 
stated. 

It  is  granted,  upon  all  sides,  that  Timothy  in  Ephe- 
sus,  and  Titus  in  Crete,  possessed  and  exercised  the 
highest  powers  now  belonging  to  the  ministry.  So  fully 
is  this  fact  admitted  by  most  Episcopal  writers,  that  they 
build  upon  it  their  most  specious  argument,  to  prove 
that  the  apostolic  office  is  perpetual.  The  objections 
to  that  argument  have  been  already  stated ;  but  the 
fact  upon  which  it  is  founded,  we  agree  with  our  op- 
ponents in  asserting.  We  maintain,  with  them,  that 
there  are  no  ministerial  functions  now  existing  in  the 
church,  which  were  not  exercised  by  Timothy  and  Ti- 
tus, who  are  clearly  recognized  as  having  power,  not 
only  to  preach  and  administer  the  sacraments  but  to 

dain  and  govern.     It  is,  however,  a  matter  of  some 


THE   PRIMITIVE   PRESBYTERS,  61 

moment  to  observe  the  nature  of  the  evidence,  which 
forms  the  ground  of  this  unanimous  conclusion.  The 
point  at  which  we  differ  is  the  question  whether  the 
possession  of  these  powers  necessarily  supposes  a  supe- 
riority of  permanent  official  rank  in  Timothy  and  Titus 
above  presbyters.  The  reasons  for  believing  that  it 
does  not,  have  already  been  detailed,  and  what  is  now 
designed  is  merely  to  direct  attention  to  the  nature  of 
the  evidence,  by  which  the  opposite  opinion  is  sustained, 
and  which  is  certainly  not  destitute  of  plausibility. 
The  argument  may  be  succinctly  stated  thus,  that 
since  the  right  of  ordination  and  of  ministerial  disci- 
pline is  recognized  by  Paul,  in  his  epistles  to  these 
two  men,  as  belonging  to  them,  they  must  of  necessity 
have  been  superior  to  the  presbyters  whom  they  were 
to  ordain  and  discipline. 

This  conclusion  is  vitiated  by  the  false  assumption, 
upon  which  it  rests,  that  ordination  to  an  office  in  the 
church  can  only  be  derived  from  one  who  holds  a  high- 
er office,  and  that  ministers  of  equal  rank  cannot  mu- 
tually discipline  each  other.  But  for  this  defect,  the 
reasoning  would  be  conclusive.  They  are  clearly  com- 
manded to  ordain  and  exercise  authority,  and  this,  if 
inconsistent  with  equality  of  rank  and  identity  of  of- 
fice, would  demonstrate  their  superiority  to  presbyters. 
It  will  not,  however,  be  contended,  even  by  the  warm- 
est advocates  of  this  opinion,  that  the  evidence  of  this 
superiority,  contained  in  Paul's  epistles,  is  the  strong- 
est that  can  be  imagined.  They  will  grant,  not  only 
that  a  formal  categorical  assertion  of  the  fact  disputed 
would  be  stronger  proof  than  that  which  is  derived  by 
inference  from  Paul's  instructions,  but  that  even  in  de- 
fault of  such  assertion,  the  contested  point  might  pos- 


52  ESSAY  II. 

sibly  have  been  much  more  indisputable  than  it  is.  If, 
for  example,  it  had  been  recorded,  as  a  historical  fact, 
that  Timothy  and  Titus  acted  towards  the  presbyters 
of  Ephesus  and  Crete  as  their  official  inferiors,  direct- 
ing their  movements  and  controlling  the  discharge  of 
their  official  duties  by  minute  instructions,  the  proof  of 
their  superiority  would  no  doubt  be  regarded  by  our 
opponents  as  stronger  than  it  now  is.  And  the  evi- 
dence would  surely  be  considered  as  still  more  decisive, 
if  among  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  there  were 
epistles  written  by  Timothy  and  Titus  to  the  presbyters 
of  Ephesus  and  Crete;  containing  no  recognition  of 
equality,  beyond  what  is  habitually  used  by  modern 
bishops  to  their  youngest  clergy ;  directing  the  move- 
ments of  the  elders  in  a  positive  and  peremptory  man- 
ner, without  any  reference  to  their  own  inclination  or 
opinion ;  the  superior  rank  of  the  two  writers  would 
be  looked  upon  as  quite  indisputable.  But  if,  in  ad- 
dition to  all  this,  the  elders  were  required  to  exercise 
their  highest  powers  as  the  representatives  or  delegates 
of  Timothy  and  Titus,  with  directions  to  pursue  a  cer- 
tain course,  until  the  writers  should  be  personally  pre- 
sent, and  with  kind  but  authoritative  hints  as  to  the 
personal  improvement  of  the  presbyters  addressed ;  it 
must  be  owned  that  the  denial  of  superior  official 
rank  in  Timothy  and  Titus  would  be  hopeless. 

Now  it  happens,  unfortunately  for  the  adverse 
argument,  that  no  such  evidence  exists,  in  reference 
to  Timothy. and  Titus,  whose  superiority  to  presbyters 
must  stand  or  fall  with  the  assumption,  that  the 
power. of  ordination  and  of  discipline  implies  a  per- 
manent diversity  of  rank.  But  what  especially  de- 
serves attention  is  the  interesting  fact,  that  the  very 


THE   PRIMITIVE   PRESBYTERS.  53 

evidence,  which  would  be  universally  acknowledged 
as  sufficient  to  establish  the  superiority  of  Timothy 
and  Titus  with  respect  to  presbyters,  does  certainly 
exist  in  the  case  of  Paul  with  respect  to  Timothy 
and  Titus  themselves.  The  facts  which  constitute 
this  evidence  have  been  already  stated  in  detail,  but 
in  different  connections.  That  their  bearing  on  the 
question  now  before  us  may  be  seen,  a  brief  recapitu- 
lation will  be  necessary,  under  several  particulars. 

And  first,  let  it  be  observed,  that  in  the  other 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  that  is  to  say,  except- 
ing the  three  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  they  are 
mentioned  in  a  manner,  which  not  only  furnishes  no 
proof  of  their  equality  to  Paul,  but  naturally  leads  to 
the  conclusion  of  their  being  his  inferiors  in  rank  and 
office.  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  it  will  not  be 
disputed,  that  Timothy  appears  as  Paul's  inferior,  a 
young  man  chosen  to  attend  him  in  his  missionary 
travels,  as  a  helper  and  a  confidential  messenger.  It 
may  be  said,  indeed,  that  it  would  not  be  fair  to  argue, 
from  the  first  stage  of  Timothy's  career,  that  he  was 
always  Paul's  inferior;  and  this  is  true.  But  if  we 
find  Paul  subsequently  speaking  of  and  to  him,  in  a 
tone  precisely  suited  to  this  original  relation  of  the 
parties,  it  will  surely  make  it  highly  probable,  to  say 
the  least,  that  this  relation  still  continued  to  sub- 
sist. And  that  this  is  really  the  case  will  be  per- 
ceived upon  comparing  the  place  occupied  by  Tim- 
othy, as  Paul's  personal  attendant,  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  (16  :  2.  17  :  15.  18  :  5.  19  :  22.  20  :  4),  with 
the  way  in  which  Paul  speaks  to  the  Corinthians  of 
having  sent  Timotheus  to  them,  and  requests  that  he 
may  be  among  them  without  fear,  and  that  no  man 
may  despise  him,  and  that  he  may  be  sent  back  to  the 


54  ESSAY   II. 

Apostle  in  due  time  (1  Cor.  16 :  10,  11).  It  is  plain 
from  these  words,  not  only  that  Timothy  was  acting 
as  Paul's  messenger  and  under  his  direction,  but  also 
that  the  service  was  a  temporary  one,  and  that  when 
it  was  accomplished,  he  was  to  return  to  his  accustom- 
ed duties,  as  the  apostle's  personal  attendant.  And 
that  this  was  not  a  solitary  case  of  such  employment, 
is  apparent  from  the  first  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians 
where  Paul  speaks  first  of  having  sent  Timotheus  to 
them  (ch.  3  :  2),  and  then  of  his  return  and  of  the  news 
which  he  brought  back  (v.  6) ;  to  which  may  be  added 
Phil.  2  :  19,  where  he  intimates  his  purpose  to  send 
Timotheus  to  them,  not  to  remain  there,  but  to  bring 
him  an  account  of  their  condition.  In  this  last  case, 
the  execution  of  the  purpose  is  left  dependent  upon 
Paul's  own  movements  and  convenience  (v.  23),  with 
an  intimation  that  the  sending  of  Timothy  was  merely 
meant  to  be  a  substitute  for  the  apostle's  personal  at- 
tendance (v.  24).  The  relation  between  Timothy  and 
Paul,  apparent  in  these  passages,  may  be  compared 
to  that  between  an  aid-de-camp  and  his  commander, 
the  two  main  duties,  in  both  cases,  being  those  of  per- 
sonal attendance  and  of  active  service  in  communicat- 
ing orders. 

That  the  relative  position  of  Titus  was  the  same, 
may  be  inferred  from  Paul's  allusion  to  "  the  coming 
of  Titus,"  as  of  one  who  had  been  absent  upon 
special  duty,  to  the  report  which  he  had  made  of  the 
state  of  things  at  Corinth,  and  to  the  effect  produced 
upon  him  by  his  visit  to  the  church  there  (2  Cor.  7 :  6, 
7,  13,  15).  It  may  also  be  observed  that  the  Apostle 
speaks  of  the  obedience  and  respect  with  which  the 
Corinthians  had  treated  Titus,  as  a  mark  of  their  sub- 
mission to  his  own  apostolical  authority  (vs.  15,  16). 


THE   PRIMITIVE   PRESBYTERS.  55 

Another  incidental  reference  to  Paul's  employing  Titus 
in  this  manner  may  be  found  in  2  Tim.  4 :  10,  where 
he  is  mentioned  among  Paul's  immediate  followers. 
"  Demas  hath  forsaken  me,  having  loved  this  present 
world,  and  is  departed  unto  Thessalonica  ;  Crescens  to 
Galatia ;  Titus  to  Dalmatia ;  only  Luke  is  with  me ;  take 
Mark  and  bring  him  with  thee  ;  for  he  is  profitable  to 
me  ek  hiaKovlav^''''  not  "for  the  ministry"  in  general, 
but  as  a  ^caKovos  or  personal  assistant  in  my  labours. 
It  seems  plain  that  all  the  persons  here  named  bore 
the  same  relation  to  the  apostle,  and  were  equally  un- 
der his  authority.  Although  Titus,  therefore,  is  not 
mentioned  in  the  Acts,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  his 
course  began,  like  Timothy's,  in  personal  attendance 
upon  Paul  in  his  journeys,  to  which  indeed  we  find 
express  allusion  in  Gal.  2  :  1,  3,  where  his  Greek  de- 
scent and  circumcision  are  referred  to,  and  the  fact  re- 
corded of  his  having  gone  with  Paul  and  Barnabas,  on 
a  particular  occasion,  to  Jerusalem. 

Both  from  the  history  and  the  epistles,  therefore, 
independently  of  those  addressed  to  Timothy  and  Ti. 
tus,  it  would  naturally  be  inferred,  that  these  men  were 
inferior  to  Paul,  and  acted  under  his  direction.  It  may, 
indeed,  be  said,  that  they  are  clearly  recognized  as 
ministers ;  that  Timothy  is  mentioned  as  Paul's  work- 
fellow  (Kom.  16:  21),  "one  that  worketh  the  work  of 
the  Lord  even  as  I  do"  (1  Cor.  16:  10),  as  a  "brother" 
(2  Cor.  1 :  1),  who  had  "  served"  with  Paul  "  in  the 
gospel"  (Phil.  2 :  22) ;  that  Titus  likewise  is  described 
as  his  "brother"  (2  Cor.  2:  13),  his  "partner  and  fel- 
low-labourer "  with  respect  to  the  Corinthians  (2  Cor. 
8:  23).  All  this  is  very  true,  and  proves  conclusively 
that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  duly  ordained  ministers, 


56  ESSAY  II. 

and  as  such  held  the  rank  of  presbyters  or  elders.  But 
this,  so  far  from  proving  their  equality  to  Paul,  strength- 
ens the  proof  of  their  inferiority,  by  bringing  their  ac- 
knowledged ministerial  standing  into  contrast  with  the 
manifest  assumption  of  superiority  on  Paul's  part.  His 
continuing  to  regulate  their  movements  after  their 
admission  to  the  ministry,  shows  clearly  that  he  was 
superior,  not  only  as  a  minister  to  private  Christians, 
but  as  an  apostle  to  mere  presbyters  or  elders. 

If  it  should  be  alleged,  however,  that  Timothy  and 
Titus  were  themselves  invested  with  this  same  superi- 
ority, and  that  it  is  in  this  capacity  that  Paul  addresses 
them,  this  is  a  question  which  can  only  be  determined 
by  an  examination  of  the  three  epistles.  If  it  be  true 
that  Paul's  superiority  to  Timothy  and  Titus  ceased  be- 
fore the  date  of  his  epistles  to  them,  we  may  certainly 
expect  to  find  the  tone  of  his  address  to  them  materi- 
ally altered,  and  the  habit  of  express  command  ex- 
changed for  that  of  brotherly  suggestion.  And  we  do 
indeed  find  many  strong  expressions  of  fraternal  or 
rather  of  paternal  love,  but  mingled  with  peremptory 
and  direct  commands,  as  well  as  incidental  intimations 
of  superior  authority  upon  the  writer's  part,  some  of 
which  might  be  considered  dubious  or  of  little  moment, 
if  we  did  not  know  the  mutual  relation  of  the  parties 
at  an  earlier  date.  The  hypothesis  that  Timothy  had 
now  attained  equality  of  rank  with  Paul,  though  not 
contradicted,  is  certainly  not  favoured  by  those  parts  of 
these  epistles,  in  which  Paul  speaks  of  having  left  him 
at  Ephesus  for  a  special  purpose  (1  Tim.  1 :  8)  and 
renews  the  commission  under  which  he  acted  (v.  18), 
gives  him  particular  directions  for  his  conduct  until  he 
shall  come  (ch.  3 :  14, 15.  4 :  13, 14),  and  summons  Timo- 


THE   PRIMITIVE   PRESBYTERS.  57 

thy  to  come  witbin  a  certain  time  (2  Tim.  4:21)  ana 
take  the  place  of  those  who  had  just  left  him  (ch. 
4 :  9-12),  bringing  Paul's  cloak  and  parchments  with 
him  (v.  13), 

Titus  also  is  described  as  being  left  in  Crete  by 
Paul,  to  finish  that  which  he  had  left  undone  (Tit. 
1 :  5),  and  is  required  to  rejoin  him,  when  relieved  by 
Artemas  or  Tychicus  (Tit.  3 :  12).     All  this  goes  to 
prove  that  no  such  change  had  taken  place  in  the  rela- 
tions of  these  men  to  Paul  as  would  make  them  no 
longer  his  inferiors  in  ofl&ce.     And  the  same  thing, 
though  it  could  not  be  directly  proved,  is  certainly 
corroborated  by  the  numerous  advices  which  he  gives 
them  with  a  view  to  their  personal  improvement ;  as 
when  he  exhorts  Timothy  to  hold  faith  and  a  good 
conscience  (1  Tim.  1 :  19),  to  refuse  profane  and  old 
wives'   fables   and    exercise    himself   unto    godliness 
(1  Tim.  4 :  7),  to  give  attendance  to  reading,  exhorta- 
tion and  doctrine  (v.  13),  to  let  his  proficiency  appear 
to  all  (v,  15),  to  take  heed  to  himself  and  to  the  doc- 
trine that  he  may  be  saved  (v.  16),  to  avoid  covetous- 
ness  and  follow  after  righteousness,   godliness,  faith, 
love,  patience,  meekness  (ch.  6 :  11),  to  fight  the  good 
fight  of  faith  and  lay  hold  on  eternal  life  (v.  12),  to 
keep  Paul's  commandment  without  spot,   unrebuka- 
ble,  until  the  appearing  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (v. 
14),  to  avoid  profane  and  vain  babblings  and  opposi- 
tions of  science  falsely  so  called  (1  Tim.  6:20.  2  Tim. 
2 :  16),  to  be  strong  in  the  grace  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus 
(2  Tim.  2 :  1),  to  endure  hardness  as  a  good  soldier  of 
Jesus  Christ  (v.  3),  to  avoid  foolish  and  unlearned 
questions    (v.  23),   to  flee  youthful  lusts  and  follow 
nghteousness,  faith,  charity,  and  peace  (v.  22),  to  con- 
3* 


58  ESSAY   II. 

tinue  in  the  things  which  he  had  learned  of  Paul 
(2  Tim.  8 :  14),  and  to  endure  afflictions  (2  Tim.  4:5). 
It  may  be  said,  that  all  these  are  expressions, 
which  might  naturally  be  used  by  a  man  of  Paul's 
celebrity  and  standing  in  the  church,  even  to  those 
holding  the  same  office,  if  much  younger  than  himself, 
and  still  more  if  they  were  his  spiritual  children.  Ad- 
mitting this  to  be  a  sufficient  explanation  of  the  gener- 
al tone  of  Paul's  epistles,  and  of  his  exhortations  to 
mere  personal  and  private  duties,  will  it  answer  the 
same  purpose,  with  respect  to  his  authoritative  direc- 
tions for  the  exercise  of  their  official  functions  ? 
Can  it  be  supposed  that  such  minute  instructions, 
as  to  public  worship,  ordination,  discipline,  and  the 
duties  to  be  enjoined  upon  different  classes  of  so- 
ciety, would  have  been  given  to  any  but  inferiors 
in  rank  and  office?  Such  a  hypothesis  might  be 
admissible,  if  every  thing  else  in  the  epistles  favoured 
it ;  but  not  when  their  whole  drift  and  tenor  make  it 
scarcely  possible  to  doubt  that  Timothy  and  Titus  are 
addressed  as  Paul's  inferiors.  There  are  several  classes 
of  objections  to  the  opposite  opinion,  every  one  of 
which  would  seem  decisive  unless  countervailed  by 
other  circumstances.  The  general  tone  of  the  epistles 
is  almost  enough  to  show  that  Paul  was  their  superior 
in  office.  It  would  fail  to  do  so,  if  there  were  express 
recognitions  of  equality ;  but  there  are  none.  His  dic- 
tation to  them,  with  respect  to  the  discharge  of  their 
official  functions,  would  be  almost  enough  to  prove  the 
point.  Above  all,  the  distinct  allusions  to  their  acting 
merely  as  Paul's  messengers  and  delegates,  without 
renouncing  their  relation  to  him  as  his  personal  attend- 
ants, make  it  almost  certain.     Now  as  each  of  these 


THE   PRIMITIVE  PRESBYTERS.  59 

distinctive  features  of  the  three  epistles  is  almost 
sufficient  of  itself  to  prove  what  is  alleged,  and 
as  none  of  them  detracts  from  any  of  the  others, 
it  may  be  safely  stated  as  the  most  probable  con- 
clusion from  the  data  generally,  that  the  men,  to  whom 
these  three  epistles  were  addressed,  were  no  less  subject 
to  Paul's  authority,  and  consequently  no  less  inferior 
in  official  rank,  when  labouring  at  Ephesus  and  Crete, 
than  when  attending  him  in  Greece  or  Asia  Minor  or 
Judea. 

If  any  should  still  think,  however,  that  the  suppo- 
sition of  their  inferiority  is  not  necessary  to  explain 
the  tone  and  contents  of  these  epistles,  let  them  look 
at  the  question  in  another  point  of  view.  Let  them 
suppose,  though  merely  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
these  men  were  not  only  younger  than  Paul,  and  his 
spiritual  children,  but  inferior  in  office,  and  that  Paul, 
in  writing  to  them,  had  this  inferiority  in  view,  and 
was  influenced  by  it,  both  in  matter  and  in  manner. 
How  could  he,  without  saying  totidem  verbis,  you  are 
my  inferiors,  have  more  distinctly  conveyed  that  idea 
than  he  has  done  here  ?  What  form  of  address,  what 
selection  of  topics,  what  turn  of  expression,  what  pecu- 
liar tone,  what  allusions  to  his  own  superiority  and 
their  subjection  to  him,  could  have  made  the  matter 
clearer  than  it  is  ?  If  an  air  of  paternal  condescension, 
if  repeated  exhortations  to  fidelity,  if  positive  com- 
mands as  to  official  acts,  if  peremptory  orders  as  to 
times  and  places,  and  express  injunctions  >d  return  to 
personal  attendance  on  the  writer,  do  not  pr^  v^e  inferi- 
ority of  rank  in  those  who  are  addressed,  it  must  be 
because  no  proof  of  the  fact  is  possible,  except  by  for- 
mal categorical  assertion.     If,  however,  it  be  true  that 


60  ESSAY  tl, 

Paul  addresses  these  two  men  precisely  as  he  must 
have  done  if  they  were  his  inferiors  in  office,  most 
readers  will  probably  think  this  a  decisive  proof  that 
they  Avere  so.  Nor  can  it  be  rejected,  without  flagrant 
inconsistency,  by  those  who  plead  for  a  perpetual 
apostleship.  The  proof  of  that  opinion  rests,  almost 
exclusively,  upon  the  fact,  that  Timothy  and  Titus 
are  directed  to  ordain  and  discipline  presbyters,  from 
which  it  is  inferred  that  they  were  something  more 
themselves.  But  if  their  being  thus  directed  can  prove 
their  superiority  to  elders,  how  much  more  does  Paul's 
directing  them  prove  his  superiority  to  them  ?  Those 
very  powers,  the  imputed  exercise  of  which  is  made  a 
proof  that  they  were  more  than  presbyters,  were  exer- 
cised at  Paul's  command,  and  in  conformity  with  his 
minute  instructions.  The  least  that  can  be  argued 
from  this  fact  is,  that  Paul's  superiority  to  Timothy 
and  Titus  is  as  clearly  proved  as  theirs  to  presbyters. 
But  this  is  only  a  small  part  of  the  whole  truth ;  for 
while  the  proof  of  their  superiority  to  presbyters  is 
wholly  insufficient,  that  of  Paul's  superiority  to  them 
is  perfect.  The  former,  as  we  have  before  seen,  rests 
upon  the  false  assumption  that  a  presbyter  could  nei- 
ther be  ordained  nor  disciplined  by  those  of  the  same 
order.  But  the  fact  of  Paul's  superiority  to  Timothy 
and  Titus  does  not  rest  upon  his  having  ordained  them 
or  acted  as  their  judge;  but  upon  his  actual  control  of 
their  official  functions,  and  their  actual  subjection  to 
his  apostolical  authority.  The  very  fact  of  their  ordain- 
ing and  exercising  discipline  at  all  may  be  described 
as  doubtful,  in  comparison  with  that  of  Paul's  govern- 
ing themselves.  That  they  governed  and  ordained,  is 
a  mere  inference  from  Paul's  advising  them  how  they 


THE   PKIMITIVE   PRESBYTERS.  61 

should  exercise  these  powers.  But  that  thej  them- 
selves were  ruled  by  Paul,  is  no  such  inference.  The 
fact  itself  is  upon  record  in  these  three  epistles,  which 
are  nothing  more  nor  less  than  three  solemn  acts  of 
apostolical  authority. 

The  fact,  then,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  infe- 
rior to  Paul  in  rank  and  office,  is  not  only  upon  all 
common  principles  of  reasoning,  but  even  upon  those 
which  are  peculiar  to  the  adverse  argument,  fully  estab- 
lished. But  if  they  were  inferior  to  Paul  in  office, 
they  must  either  have  been  presbyters,  or  something 
intermediate  between  that  and  apostles.  The  assump- 
tion of  an  intermediate  order  sweeps  away,  of  course, 
all  arguments  to  prove  that  certain  persons  were  apos- 
tles, simply  because  they  were  superior  to  presbyters. 
It  also  gives  a  license  to  assume  as  many  intermediate 
orders  as  may  be  required  to  demonstrate  different 
hypotheses.  In  point  of  fact,  however,  it  is  never 
now  assumed.  It  is  one  of  the  conceded  points,  on 
which  the  parties  to  this  controversy  meet,  that  there 
was  no  office  in  the  primitive  church  system,  above 
that  of  presbyter,  exepting  the  apostleship.  If,  then, 
Timothy  and  Titas  were  inferior  to  Paul,  they  could 
not  have  been  more  than  presbyters,  and  must  in  that 
capacity  have  exercised  the  right  of  ordination  and 
of  discipline.  If,  as  a  last  resort,  it  be  alleged,  that 
these  powers  were  exercised  by  virtue  of  a  special  com- 
mission, and  not  as  ordinary  functions  of  the  eldership, 
it  still  remains  true,  even  granting  this  assertion,  that 
presbyters  were  competent  to  exercise  these  powers, 
without  being  elevated  to  a  higher  office.  What  they 
were  thus  occasionally  authorized  to  do  by  the  original 
apostles,  they  might  still  do,  even  if  there  were  apos- 


62  ESSAY   II. 

ties  in  the  churcli ;  but  if,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter, 
there  are  none,  then  what  was  occasionally  done  by 
presbyters  at  first,  must  now  be  done  habitually  by 
them,  as  the  highest  class  of  officers  existing,  by  divine 
right,  in  the  church.  Much  more  must  they  possess 
this  right  as  the  successors  of  the  primitive  elders,  if 
the  latter,  as  we  have  the  strongest  reason  to  believe, 
possessed  it,  not  occasionally  merely,  but  as  a  neces- 
sary function  of  their  office. 

The  result  of  our  inquiry  may  be  briefly  stated 
thus :  that  Paul  addresses  the  presbyters  of  Ephesus, 
as  if  the  whole  care  of  the  church  was  to  devolve  on 
them,  representing  them  as  shepherds  of  Christ's  flock, 
a  metaphor  implying  the  possession  of  the  highest 
powers  and  employed  here  in  its  widest  sense,  be- 
cause connected  with  the  prediction  of  dangers  which 
could  only  be  averted  by  the  exercise  of  great  autho- 
rity, and  also  because  Peter,  in  addressing  the  presby- 
ters of  Asia  Minor,  speaks  of  them  as  shepherds,  sub- 
ject to  no  chief  shepherd  but  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  possessing  powers  which  might  easily  become 
despotic  in  their  exercise.  We  find  too  that  Paul 
elsewhere  speaks  of  the  presbyters  of  Ephesus  as. 
"  ruling,"  the  word  employed  being  one  used  to  de- 
note the  government  of  families,  and  therefore,  in 
its  application  to  the  church,  implying  the  possession 
of  the  highest  powers,  not  excepting  those  of  disci- 
pline and  ordination.  And  accordingly  we  find  the  or- 
dination of  Timothy  ascribed  to  a  '•'  presbytery,"  which, 
on  any  natural  interpretation  of  the  term,  can  only 
mean  a  body  of  presbyters  acting  in  that  character. 
We  find  too  that  Timothy  and  Titus,  while  actually 
exercising  the  highest  powers  now  belonging  to  the 


THE   PRIMITIVE   PRESBYTERS.  63 

ministry,  are  distinctly  recognized  as  Paul's  inferiors 
in  rank  and  office,  and  therefore  as  sometliing  less 
than  apostles,  and  nothing  more  than  presbyters,  whe- 
ther acting  in  the  ordinary  course  of  duty,  or  by  vir- 
tue of  a  special  commission. 

From  these  special  testimonies,  singly  and  together, 
it  appears  that  presbyters,  in  apostolic  times,  possessed 
and  exercised  the  highest  powers  now  belonging  to 
the  ministry.  This  position  having  been  established  by 
direct  proof,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  advert  to  certain 
passages  and  detached  expressions,  which,  although 
they  may  prove  nothing  by  themselves,  and  are  sus- 
ceptible of  different  explanations,  and  have  therefore 
not  been  used  above  in  argument,  may  nevertheless 
serve  as  incidental  confirmations  of  the  truth  already 
ascertained.  One  of  these  is  the  account  of  the  council 
at  Jerusalem,  to  which  the  church  of  Antioch  referred 
an  interesting  and  important  question,  sending  Paul 
and  Barnabas  and  others,  "  unto  the  apostles  and 
ELDERS,  about  this  question"  (Acts  15  :  2).  "  And 
when  they  were  come  to  Jerusalem,  they  were  re- 
ceived of  the  apostles  and  elders"  (v.  4).  "  And 
the  apostles  and  elders  came  together,  for  to  consider 
of  the  matter"  (v.  6),  and  after  due  deliberation  and 
discussion,  "  it  pleased  the  apostles  and  elders  (v.  22) 
to  send  a  letter  to  the  church  at  Antioch,  with  this 
inscription,  "  The  apostles  and  elders  and  brethren 
send  greeting,"  etc.  (v.  23) ;  and  we  afterwards  read 
that  Paul  and  Silas,  in  their  missionary  tour  through 
Asia  Minor,  "as  they  went  through  the  cities,  deliver- 
ed them  the  decrees  for  to  keep,  that  were  ordained 
of  the  apostles  and  elders  which  were  at  Jerusalem" 
(Acts  16 :  4).     All  that  it  is  now  meant  to  infer  from 


64  ESSAY   II. 

tliis  transaction  is  that,  even  wliile  most  of  the 
apostles  were  still  present  at  Jerusalem,  the  church 
there  had  elders,  and  that  these  were  not  regarded  as 
mere  teachers,  or  leaders  in  public  worship,  but  as  men 
clothed  with  authority. 

If  any  should  object  that  the  same  reasoning  would 
prove  the  other  members  of  the  church  to  have 
possessed  the  same  authority,  because  it  was  "  the 
church"  that  received  the  messengers  from  Antioch, 
(Acts  15 :  4),  because  it  was  "  the  apostles  and  elders 
WITH  THE  WHOLE  church"  that  decided  the  question 
(v.  22),  and  because  the  epistle  was  written  in  the 
name  of  "the  apostles  and  elders  and  brethren," 
(v.  23),  it  may  be  answered,  first,  that  though  the 
brethren,  or  church  at  large,  are  mentioned  in  these 
cases,  they  are  not  in  the  others  which  have  been  al- 
ready quoted,  whereas  the  elders  are  invariably  named 
whenever  the  apostles  are.  In  the  next  place,  accord- 
ing to  the  principles  of  government  laid  down  both  in 
the  Old  and  the  New  Testament,  the  church  would 
of  course  act  through  the  apostles  and  the  elders, 
and  especially  the  latter,  who  were  really  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  so  that  it  does  not 
even  certainly  appear,  that  the  church-members  were 
in  any  sense  present  except  in  the  person  of  their 
representatives;  the  word  translated  "multitude"  in 
V.  12  being  indefinite  and  relative  in  meaning.  Lastly, 
this  case  is  cited  only  in  corroboration  of  the  fact,  al- 
ready proved  from  other  quarters,  that  the  presbyters 
were  rulers,  whereas  no  such  proof  exists  of  the  pow- 
ers of  government  having  been  exercised  by  the  people 
generally. 

That  this  constitution  of   the  mother-church  was 


THE   PRIMITIVE   PRESBYTEES.  65 

copied  into  others,  as  they  were  organized,  is  plain 
from  the  practice  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  who,  as  they 
passed  through  Asia  Minor,  "  ordained  them  elders  in 
every  church"  (Acts  14 :  28),  and  from  Paul's  leaving 
Titus  in  Crete  to  "  ordain  elders  in  every  city"  (Tit. 
1 :  5).  The  powers  of  these  elders  were  no  doubt  the 
same  as  in  the  mother-church,  and'  though  they  are 
not  often  mentioned,  it  is  always  in  a  manner  to  con- 
firm the  supposition  that  they  were  familiarly  regarded 
as  the  highest  local  rulers  of  the  church;  as  when 
James  says,  "  Is  any  sick  among  you  ?  let  him  call  for 
the  elders  of  the  church"  (Jas.  5  :  14) ;  and  John  calls 
himself,  in  the  inscriptions  of  two  epistles,  o  irpea^v- 
T€po<i;  and  Peter  tells  the  presbyters  of  Asia  Minor,  that 
he  is  their  fellow-elder  (o  avfiTrpea/Surepo^  1  Pet.  5  :  1). 
That  in  John's  case  it  denotes  the  senior  apostle,  and 
that  in  the  others  it  is  a  generic  title  for  church-officers 
in  general,  is  no  doubt  possible ;  and  all  that  is  here 
intended  is  to  point  out  how  completely  even  the  inci- 
dental notices  of  presbyters  agree  with  the  presby- 
terian  hypothesis. 

It  may  be  a  matter  of  surprise  and  even  of  objec- 
tion on  the  part  of  some,  that  so  few  positive  testimo- 
nies to  the  truth  of  that  hypothesis  are  found  in  Scrip- 
■  ture.  But  let  such  remember  that  church-government 
is  very  seldom  spoken  of  at  all,  and  ordination  scarcely 
ever,  so  that  in  proportion  to  the  space-  allotted  to  the 
general  subject,  the  foregoing  proofs  maybe  considered 
ample.  One  effect  of  the  comparative  neglect  of  all 
such  matters  by  the  sacred  writers  is  that  something, 
upon  any  supposition,  is  to  be  supplied  by  inference  or 
analogy.  The  only  question  is,  which  hypothesis  re- 
quires least  to  be  conjectured  or  assumed  ?     As  this 


bb  ESSAY   II. 

is  no  unfair  criterion  of  truth,  we  are  willing  to 
submit  our  doctrine  to  a  rigorous  comparison,  in  this 
respect,  with  that  of  our  opponents.  They  admit  that 
the  presbyterial  office  was  established  in  the  primitive 
church  and  was  intended  to  be  permanent ;  that  it  was 
clothed  with  the  important  powers  of  preaching  the 
gospel  and  administering  the  sacraments ;  and  that  it  is 
repeatedly  spoken  of  in  terms  which,  taken  by  them- 
selves, would  imply  the  possession  of  the  highest  pow- 
ers now  belonging  to  the  ministry.  But  this  conclu- 
sion they  avoid  by  assuming  that  although  the  office 
was  intended  to  continue,  and  intrusted  with  some  func- 
tions of  the  greatest  moment,  it  was  not  empowered  to 
ordain  or  exercise  supreme  authority,  that  these  pre- 
rogatives were  specially  reserved  to  a  superior  order. 
This,  however,  cannot  be  maintained  without  suppos- 
ing, that  on  various  occasions  when  the  mention  of 
this  hisfher  class  would  seem  to  have  been  almost  uii- 
avoidable,  the  sacred  writers  did  nevertheless  pass  it 
by  in  silence,  and  not  only  pass  it  by,  but  apply  the 
very  language  that  would  best  describe  its  powers  to 
the  lower  order  which  had  no  such  powers.  However 
this  extraordinary  fact  may  be  accounted  for,  it  must 
be  assumed,  or  the  adverse  doctrine  cannot  be  main- 
tained. The  presbyterian  hypothesis,  on  the  contrary, 
takes  words  and  phrases  in  their  usual  sense  and  their 
most  natural  construction,  and  adds  nothing  to  the 
facts  which  are  admitted  by  both  parties,  but  setting 
out  from  the  conceded  fact  that  presbyters  were  officers 
of  high  rank  and  intrusted  with  important  powers,  it 
concludes  that,  when  they  are  referred  to  as  the  highest 
local  rulers  of  the  churches,  they  were  so  in  fact ;  that 
when  certain  duties,  are  enjoined  upon  them,  it  was 


THE    PEIMITIVE    PRESBYTERS.  67 

meant  that  they  should  do  them  ;  in  a  word,  that  the 
obvious  and  natural  meaning  of  the  passages  which 
speak  of  elders  is  the  true  one,  and  that  no  other  need 
be  sought  by  forced  constructions  or  gratuitous  as- 
sumptions. By  the  application  of  this  safe  and  simple 
method  of  interpretation,  we  have  reached  the  conclu- 
sion that  presbyters,  as  presbyters,  possessed  and  exer- 
cised the  highest  ministerial  powers,  including  those 
of  discipline  and  ordination,  in  the  days  of  the  apos- 
tles ;  that  the  same  rights  and  powers  belong  to  them 
at  present ;  and  that  no  ministrations  can  be  charged 
with  invalidity,  because  they  are  performed  under 
authority  derived  from  presbyters. 


ESSAY    III. 

OIS"  THE   PEKPETUITY   OF  THE    APOSTLESHIP. 

In  the  foregoing  essay  an  attempt  was  made  to  prove 
that  the  highest  permanent  office  in  the  church  is  that 
of  Presbyter,  by  showing  that  the  primitive  Presbyters 
exercised  the  highest  ministerial  functions.  In  oppo- 
sition to  this  doctrine,  some  allege  the  superiority  and 
perpetuity  of  the  Apostolic  office.  If  this  office  was 
superior  to  that  of  Presbyter,  and  if  it  was  designed 
to  be  perpetual,  it  follows  of  course  that  no  church 
authority  can  rightfully  be  exercised,  except  by  those 
who  have  succeeded  the  Apostles  in  the  powers  which 
belonged  to  them  as  such,  and  as  distinguished  from 
the  Elders  of  the  Church.  Let  it  be  observed,  how- 
ever, that  in  order  to  justify  this  conclusion,  two 
things  must  be  made  out.  If  the  Apostles  were  not 
an  order  of  church-officers,  distinct  from  and  superior 
to  the  Presbyters  or  Elders,  the  strongest  proof  that 
the  office  was  perpetual  only  proves  that  that  of  Elder 
was  designed  to  be  perpetual,  which  all  admit.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  Apostolic  office  was  a  temporary 
one,  it  matters  not  how  far  it  may  have  been  superior 


PERPETUITY  OF   THE  APOSTLESHIP.  69 

to  that  held  by  Presbyters,  who  still  remain,  in  that 
case,  the  highest  permanent  office-bearers  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  In  order  then  to  the  decision  of  the  con- 
troversy, two  distinct  questions  are  to  be  determined. 
1.  Were  the  Apostles  superior  to  Presbyters  ?  2.  Was 
their  office,  as  distinct  from  that  of  Presbyter,  designed 
to  be  perpetual  ?  By  some  Presbyterian  writers  both 
these  questions  have  been  answered  in  the  negative, 
while  all  Episcopalians,  who  assert  the  jus  divinum  of 
prelatical  episcopacy,  answer  both  affirmatively.  In 
the  remainder  of  the  present  argument  the  first  point 
will  be  conceded ;  that  is  to  say,  it  will  be  granted  that 
the  Apostles  were  church-officers  superior  to  Presby- 
ters or  Elders.  At  the  same  time  an  attempt  will  be 
made  to  prove,  exclusively  from  Scri^Dture,  that  the 
Apostolic  office  was  a  temporary  one, 

I.  The  first  argument  in  favour  of  this  proposition 
is,  that  the  continuance  of  the  office  is  nowhere  ex- 
pressly stated. 

To  this  it  might  be  answered,  that  an  office  being 
once  created,  its  continuance  must  be  presumed,  with- 
out an  explicit  declaration  to  the  contrary. 

The  general  principle  is  not  denied;  but  in  this 
case  there  are  peculiar  circumstances  which  affiDrd 
strong  ground  for  a  contrary  presumption. 

1.  The  original  Apostles  are  uniformly  spoken  of 
as  constituting  a  distinct  and  well  defined  body  of  men, 
not  only  in  the  gospel  history,  but  in  the  latest  books  of 
the  New  Testament.  "But  beloved,  remember  ye  the 
words  which  were  spoken  before  by  the  Apostles  of 
OUR  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  how  that  they  told  you  there 
should  be  mockers  in  the  last  time  who  should  walk 
after  their  own  ungodly  lusts"  (Jude,  vs.  17,  18).   This 


70  ESSAY  III. 

mode  of  expression  seems  to  intimate,  that  "the 
apostles"  belonged  to  a  preceding  period,  and  that 
most  of  them  were  actually  gone.  Jude  could  hardly 
have  expressed  himself  in  this  way,  if  the  title  had  al- 
ready been  extended  to  a  multitude  of  others.  "Re- 
joice over  her,  thou  heaven,  and  ye  holy  Apostles 
AND  Prophets  ;  for  God  hath  revenged  you  on  her" 
(Rev.  18 :  20).  Can  there  be  any  doubt  that  this  apos- 
trophe is  addressed  to  the  original  Apostles  ?  And 
would  John  have  so  described  them  if  the  name,  in 
his  day,  had  been  rightfully  assumed  by  many  others, 
equal  and  equally  "  supreme"  in  power  ?  That  he  was 
not  familiar  with  any  such  extension  of  the  name,  may 
also  be  inferred  from  Rev.  21 :  14,  where  he  speaks  of 
"  the  twelve  apostles." 

It  may  be  urged,  however,  that  the  case  of  Paul 
destroys  the  force  of  the  presumption  drawn  from  the 
mention  of  the  Apostles  as  a  limited  number ;  for  he 
was  a  thirteenth,  and  if  one  might  be  added,  why  not 
more  ? 

This  objection  would  be  valid,  but  for  one  consid- 
eration, which  converts  the  case  of  Paul  into  a  strong 
corroboration  of  the  doctrine  against  which  it  is  al- 
leged. That  case  is  every  where  referred  to  and  de- 
scribed as  an  anomalous  exception.  He  speaks  of 
himself  as  the  least  of  the  Apostles  (1  Cor.  15 :  9), 
and  not  only  as  morally  unworthy  to  be  called  one, 
but  as  almost  too  late  to  be  an  Apostle,  as  one  born 
out  of  due  time  (1  Cor.  15 :  8),  while  at  the  same  time 
he  asserts  his  equality  with  the  rest  as  to  official  rank 
and  power.  Now  if  the  Apostolic  office  was  intended 
to  be  regularly  continued,  and  if  many  others  were  to 
be  brought  into  it,  and  invested  with  its  "supreme 


PERPETUITY   OF  THE   APOSTLESHIP.  71 

powers,"  even  during  Paul's  lifetime,  and  by  his 
agency,  how  was  he  like  one  born  out  of  due  time  ? 
Or  how  could  he  call  himself  the  least  of  the  Apos- 
tles? Can  any  degree  of  humility  make  it  consistent 
with  his  truth  and  candour,  to  pronounce  himself  in- 
ferior, as  an  Apostle,  to  Timothy,  Titus,  Epaphroditus, 
Silas,  Junias,  and  Andronicus,  who  were  all  officially 
his  equals  on  the  opposite  hypothesis  ?  Since  then 
the  case  of  Paul  is  represented  by  himself  as  an 
anomaly,  it  serves,  as  a  sole  exception,  to  confirm 
the  general  statement  that  the  Apostles  are  referred  to 
as  a  limited  body,  not  to  be  increased.  This  is  the 
first  ground  of  presumption  that  the  office  of  apostle, 
as  distinguished  from  all  others,  was  intended  to  be 
temporary. 

2.  A  second  is,  that  some  of  the  apostolic  powers 
are  acknowledged  by  both  parties  in  this  controversy 
to  have  been  temporary.  The  presumption,  therefore, 
is,  that  all  the  rest  were  temporary  likewise,  except  so 
far  as  the  continuance  of  any  can  be  clearly  shown 
from  Scripture.  Now  it  is  not  and  cannot  be  denied, 
that  some  of  them  were  thus  continued,  and  that  for 
this  purpose  the  offices  of  Presbyter  and  Deacon 
now  exist.  But  this  very  fact  adds  greatly  to  the 
strength  of  the  presumption,  that  the  apostolic  office 
was  a  temporary  one.  For  if  the  cessation  of  some 
apostolic  powers  makes  it  a  priori  probable  that  all  the 
rest  ceased  likewise,  how  much  more  does  the  acknow- 
ledged transfer  of  some  of  the  remaining  powers  to 
distinct  church-officers,  continued  in  existence  for  that 
very  purpose,  make  it  a  priori  probable,  that  all  the 
apostolic  powers,  which  did  not  thus  cease,  were  thus 
transferred  ? 


72  ESSAY  III. 

3.  The  power  exercised  by  the  Apostles  was  a 
general  ambulatory  power,  not  confined  to  particular 
districts.  This  was  exactly  suited  to  the  infant  con- 
dition of  the  church,  but  could  not  supersede  the  ne- 
cessity of  permanent  and  local  officers,  after  the  plant- 
ing of  particular  churches.  Now  the  elders  and 
deacons,  of  whom  we  read  in  the  New  Testament,  are 
the  elders  and  deacons  of  particular  churches,  after 
whose  appointment  the  irregular  supervision  of  the 
Apostles  might  be  expected  to  cease,  as  being  no 
longer  needed.  On  the  hypothesis,  that  the  Apostles 
were  commissioned  merely  to  plant  the  church  in 
various  countries,  and  ordain  permanent  officers  who 
should  exercise  such  of  the  apostolical  powers  as  were 
necessary  for  the  continued  existence  of  the  church, 
while  all  the  others  ceased,  the  course  of  things  could 
hardly  have  been  different  from  that  which  is  recorded. 
This  then  affords  a  third  ground  of  presumption  that 
the  supposition  is  coincident  with  fact. 

4.  A  fourth  ground  is,  that  the  apostolic  functions, 
which  all  admit  to  have  been  subsequently  exercised 
by  Presbyters,  are  precisely  those  which,  in  their  own 
nature,  are  the  most  important,  namely,  the  preaching 
of  the  gospel  and  the  administration  of  the  sacraments. 
However  important  the  powers  of  ordination  and  dis- 
cipline may  be,  they  derive  their  importance  from  the 
others.  The  end  of  discipline  is  to  preserve  purity 
and  exclude  the  unworthy  from  the  peculiar  privileges 
of  the  church.  The  end  of  ordination  is  to  secure  a 
valid  administration  of  the  word  and  sacraments.  If 
the  Head  of  the  Church  had  left  this  ministration  to 
any  one  who  chose  to  perform  it,  witliout  special  ordi- 


PERPETUITY   OF   THE   APOSTLESHIP.  73 

nation  to  an  office,  whatever  inconveniences  miglit 
have  attended  that  arrangement,  it  could  not  have  im- 
paired the  intrinsic  value  of  the  word  and  sacraments. 
But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  there  were  no  word  and 
sacraments,  ordination  would  be  useless.  And  the 
same  may  be  said,  mutatis  mutandis^  of  government  or 
discipline.  These  then  (ordination  and  discipline)  are 
subsidiary  functions  which  derive  their  value  from 
the  relation  they  sustain  to  others.  Now  if  the 
office  of  a  Christian  Presbyter  had  been  invested  with 
powers  of  a  subordinate  nature,  i.  e.  such  as  derive 
their  value  from  their  being  necessary  to  the  exercise 
of  others,  it  might  have  been  alleged,  with  some  degree 
of  plausibility,  that  the  Apostolic  office  was  designed 
to  be  perpetual  for  the  sake  of  those  functions  which 
were  not  bestowed  on  Presbyters,  and  yet  were  es- 
sential to  the  being  of  the  Church.  But  when  we  find 
that  the  lower  office  was  invested  with  those  powers 
which  possess  a  necessary  and  intrinsic  value,  this,  to 
say  the  least,  adds  strength  to  the  presumption  that 
the  Apostolic  office,  which  was  thus  succeeded  by 
another  order  in  its  most  important  functions,  was  in- 
tended to  be  temporary. 

5.  On  the  supposition,  that  some  apostolic  powers 
were  neither  shared  by  Presbyters  nor  discontinued, 
there  is  no  means  of  determining  what  these  reserved 
powers  were.  For  if  it  be  said  that  all  which  were  not 
extended  to  Presbyters  were  thus  reserved,  this,  in  the 
first  place,  presupposes  the  decision  of  the  question 
whether  Presbyters  ordained  and  governed;  and,  in 
the  next  place,  supposing  that  they  did  not,  the  suc^ 
cessors  of  the  apostles  must,  according  to  this  rule, 
possess  the  power  of  working  miracles,  which  certainly 
4- 


74  ESSAY    III. 

belonged  to  tlie  original  apostles.  If  it  be  said  that 
this  was  a  temporary  gift  of  an  extraordinary  nature, 
then  the  power  of  bestowing  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
also  temporary.  But  this  many  are  unwilling  to 
admit.  There  is,  in  fact,  no  unity  among  Episcopa- 
lians, as  to  the  precise  powers  which  have  been  con- 
tinued in  their  Bishops  as  successors  of  the  Apostles. 
Some  confine  their  claims  to  ordination.  Some  add 
discipline,  as  rightfully  belonging  only  to  the  Bishop. 
Others  add  the  power  of  bestowing  the  Holy  Ghost. 
This  last  is  inseparable  from  the  gift  of  miracles. 
Whenever  the  effects  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
conferred  by  the  Apostles,  are  described,  they  are  of  a 
miraculous  nature.  The  power  of  bestowing  the  more 
inward  and  spiritual  influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
is  not  only  never  claimed,  but  is  expressly  disclaimed. 
The  Church  of  Rome  is  therefore  more  consistent  than 
the  advocates  of  High  Church  Episcopacy,  in  claiming 
not  only  the  power  of  conferring  the  Holy  Ghost,  but 
also  its  inseparable  adjunct,  that  of  working  miracles. 
What  is  here  designed,  however,  is  not  to  disprove  the 
possession  of  this  power,  but  to  show  the  want  of  har- 
mony among  those  who  maintain  that  certain  apostolic 
powers  are  continued  in  the  church,  by  means  of  min- 
isters distinct  from  and  superior  to  Presbyters.  And 
the  design  of  showing  this  is  to  illustrate  the  impossi- 
bility of  drawing  any  line  between  the  powers  which 
ceased  or  were  transferred  to  Presbyters,  and  those 
which  are  alleged  to  have  been  continued  in  the 
apostolic  office.  And  the  use  to  be  made  of  this  im- 
possibility is  simply  to  strengthen  the  presumption 
which  has  been  already  raised  in  favour  of  the  doc 
trine  that  the  Apostolic  office,  as  distinct  from  that  of 
Elder  and  superior  to  it,  Avas  a  temporary  one. 


PERPETUITY   OF   THE   APOSTLESHIP.  75 

The  grounds  of  the  presumption,  then,  are,  that 
the  twelve  aj)ostles  are  referred  to  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, as  a  well-known  body  of  men,  limited  in  num- 
ber, and  not  to  be  increased,  except  in  the  extraordi- 
nary case  of  Panl,  which  he  himself  describes  as  a 
remarkable  exception ;  that  some  of  the  powers  ex- 
ercised by  the  original  apostles  are  no  longer  in  ex- 
istence ;  that  some  which  still  exist  are  exercised 
by  Presbyters,  and  were  so  exercised  in  apostolic 
times;  that  those  which  are  thus  exercised  by  Pres- 
byters are  in  themselves  the  most  essential  to  the 
existence  of  the  church  ;  that  the  office  of  Presbyter 
has  been  continued  in  the  church  for  the  very  purpose 
of  succeeding  the  apostles  in  these  functions,  and  with 
a  view  to  permanent  action  within  fixed  local  bounds ; 
that  the  advocates  for  the  perpetuity  of  the  apostolic 
office  are  not  agreed  among  themselves  as  to  the  powers 
which  now  belong  to  it,  and  that  this  want  of  agreement 
arises  from  the  silence  of  Scripture,  and  the  impossibili- 
ty of  fixing  any  principle,  by  which  a  line  may  be  drawn 
between  the  powers  which  are  thus  continued  and  those 
which  have  ceased  or  been  transferred  to  Presbyters. 

Without  insisting  on  the  positive  conclusions  which 
might  not  unreasonably  be  deduced  from  these  prem- 
ises, they  may  be  described  as  furnishing  a  strong  pre- 
sumption, that  the  apostolic  office  was  intended  to  be 
temporary,  bearing  the  same  relation  to  the  permament 
ministry  that  a  constituent  assembly  or  convention 
bears  to  the  legislative  body  which  succeeds  it. 
There  is  presumptive  proof  of  this,  so  strong  that 
it  can  only  be  countervailed  by  positive  evidence  from 
Scripture.  The  facts,  which  have  been  stated  as  the 
grounds  of  this  presumption,  may  be  clearly  proved 


76  ESSAY   III, 

from  Scripture.  It  is  not  too  much  to  ask,  then,  that 
if  another  fact  is  to  be  added  to  the  list,  viz.  that  some 
of  the  apostolic  powers  were  neither  discontinued  nor 
transferred  to  Presbyters,  and  that  for  the  exercise  of 
these  reserved  powers  the  apostolic  office  was  itself 
continued,  some  explicit  declaration  of  the  fact  may  be 
adduced  to  countervail  the  strong  adverse  presumption. 
And  this  brings  us  back  to  our  first  position,  that  THE 
CONTINUANCE  OF  THE  ApOSTOLIC  OFFICE,  IN  ADDITION 
TO  THOSE  WHICH  RELIEVED  IT  OF  ITS  MOST  IMPORTANT 
FUNCTIONS,     IS    NOWHERE    EXPLICITLY    ASSERTED    IN 

THE  Scriptures.  As  the  presumptions  are  so  strong 
against  the  supposition  of  a  permanent  apostleship, 
the  very*silence  of  the  Scriptures  might  be  urged  as  a 
decisive  proof  It  cannot  be  denied,  however,  that 
the  force  of  this  negative  argument  would  be  destroyed 
by  proving  that  the  Scriptures  indirectly  recognize  the 
Apostolic  office  as  perpetual.  This  leads  us  to  another 
view  of  the  subject. 

II.  A  second  argument  in  favour  of  the  proposition, 
that  the  Apostolic  office  was  a  temporary  one,  is  that 
the  name  Apostle,  in  its  strict  and  proper  sense,  is  not 
applied,  in  the  New  Testament,  to  any  persons  who 
were  not  of  the  original  thirteen. 

The  passages,  in  which  such  an  application  of  the 
title  is  alleged,  are  the  following.  1.  "But  the  multi- 
tude of  the  city  was  divided  :  and  part  held  with  the 
Jews,  and  part  with  the  Apostles  [meaning  Paul 
and  Barnabas] — "  which  when  the  Apostles,  Barna- 
bas and  Paul,  heard  of,  they  rent  their  clothes,"  etc. 
(Acts  14 :  4,  14). 

2,  "Salute  Andronicus  and  Jumas  my  kinsmen 
and  my  fellow-prisoners,  who  are  of  note  among  the 


PERPETUITY    OF    THE    APOSTLESHIP.  77 

Apostles,  who  also  were  in  Christ  before  me"  (Rom. 
16:7). 

3.  "  Yet  I  supposed  it  necessary  to  send  to  you 
Epaphroditiis,  my  brother  and  companion  in  labour 
and  fellow-soldier,  but  your  messenger  {airoaToXov)^ 
and  one  that  ministers  to  my  wants"  (Phil.  2 :  25). 

4.  "  Whether  any  do  inquire  of  Titus,  he  is  my  part- 
ner and  fellow-helper  concerning  you  ;  or  our  brethren 
be  inquired  of,  they  are  the  messengers  (dTrocrroXot)  of 
the  churches,  and  the  glory  of  Christ"  (2  Cor.  8 :  28). 

5.  "Paul  and  Silvanus  and  Timotheus  unto  the 
church  of  the  Thessalonians"  (1  Thess.  1 : 1),  compared 
with  "ISTor  of  men  sought  we  glory,  neither  of  you, 
nor  yet  of  others,  when  we  might  have  been  burden- 
some AS  the  Apostles  of  Christ"  (1  Thess.  2 :  6). 

From  these  texts  it  is  inferred  by  some  that  Barna- 
bas, Andronicus,  Junias,  Epaphroditus,  Silas,  Timothy, 
and  certain  brethren  who  accompanied  Titus  to  Co- 
rinth, were  Apostles,  in  the  same  sense  in  which  Paul 
was  an  Apostle ;  and  from  this  the  obvious  conclusion 
has  been  drawn,  that  the  Apostolic  of&ce  was  intended 
to  be  permanent. 

It  might  well  be  made  a  question  whether  the  strong 
antecedent  probability,  that  the  Apostolic  office  was  a 
temporary  one,  could  be  wholly  set  aside  by  the  appli- 
cation of  the  title  in  five  places,  however  clear  the 
application  might  be,  and  hoAvever  obvious  the  sense 
in  which  the  word  is  used.  The  advocates  of  this 
interpretation  themselves  protest  against  all  objections 
to  their  system  founded  merely  on  the  scriptural  use 
of  the  word  Bishop^  which  they  own  to  be  convertible 
with  Presbyter.  They  have  no  right,  therefore,  to 
make  that  of  the  word  Apostle  the  foundation  of  a  per- 


78  ESSAY   III. 

fectly  exclusive  system.  If  the  lawfulness  of  a  superior 
order  were  the  point  in  question,  incidental  proofs  of 
this  kind  ought  to  have  due  weight;  but  when  at- 
tempts are  made  to  prove,  that  the  continuance  of  the 
Apostolic  order,  as  distinct  from  that  of  Presbyters,  is 
essential  to  the  being  of  a  church,  and  that  in  the  face 
of  such  presumptions  to  the  contrary  as  have  been 
stated,  a  sober  reasoner  would  have  good  cause  to 
hesitate  before  receiving,  as  conclusive  evidence,  the 
application  of  the  name  in  a  few  cases,  even  if  the 
proposed  interpretation  of  the  passages  referred  to  were 
undoubtedly  correct. 

But  this  is  very  far  from  being  certain.  Of  the  five 
texts  cited,  there  are  two,  in  which  the  application 
of  the  title  is  at  least  very  doubtful.  1.  In  the  first 
epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  the  word  airocnoXoi  is  not 
in  juxtaposition  or  apparent  connection  with  the  names 
of  Timothy  and  Silas,  but  separated  from  them  by 
fourteen  intervening  verses.  It  is  not  even  alleged, 
that  the  joining  of  other  names  with  Paul's,  in  the  be- 
ginning of  a  letter,  makes  it  necessary  to  refer  the 
whole  of  its  contents  to  all  the  persons  thus  included 
in  the  title ;  because,  after  such  a  joint  address,  he  often 
uses  the  first  person  singular.  Nor  is  it,  on  the  other 
hand,  alleged,  that  the  use  of  the  plural  ice  requires 
such  a  reference ;  because  that  mode  of  speech  is  so 
habitual  with  Paul,  that  it  may  almost  be  regarded  as 
one  of  his  characteristic  idioms ;  and,  as  if  to  guard 
against  such  a  construction,  he  says,  near  the  conclu- 
sion of  this  very  passage,  "  Wherefore  we  would  have 
come  unto  you,  even  I  Paul,  once  and  again"  (1 
Thess.  2 :  18).  This  explanation  is,  at  least,  sufficient 
to  outweigh  the  argument  derived  from  the  plural  form 


PERPETUITY   OF  THE   APOSTLESHIP.  79 

cLTTocrrdXoL,  which  is,  no  doubt,  strictly  inapplicable  to  a 
single  person,  but  not  when  preceded,  as  in  this  case,  by 
a  particle  denoting  resemblance  or  comparison.  Though 
Paul  could  not  call  himself  "the  apostles  of  Christ," 
he  could  assert  his  right  to  do  a  thing  "  as  (i.  e.  like)  the 
apostles  of  Christ."  He  could  disclaim  having  sought 
glory  of  them  or  of  others,  when  he  might  have  been 
burdensome,  as  the  apostles  of  Christ  collectively  had 
a  right  to  be.  This  construction  of  the  sentence  is,  to 
say  the  least,  as  natural  as  that  which  makes  the  plu- 
ral form  in  chap.  2 :  6  refer  to  Timothy  and  Silas,  who 
are  mentioned  only  in  the  title  (1 :  1),  and  neither  there 
nor  elsewhere  called  apostles. 

But  even  granting  that  this  is  a  more  probable  ex- 
planation of  the  plural  form,  which  is  a  mere  gratuitous 
concession,  it  would  not  follow  necessarily  that  Timo- 
thy and  Titus  were  Apostles  in  the  sense  contended 
for ;  because  another  supposition  is  still  open  to  us, 
namely,  that  diroa-roXoL  is  here  used  in  a  different  sense. 
For  which  is  it  easier  to  believe,  that  Silas  and  Timo- 
thy were  as  much  Apostles  as  Paul  himself,  but  no- 
where called  so  except  here  by  implication  and  remote 
allusion ;  or  that  when  he  calls  them  by  that  title,  he 
uses  it  in  a  wider  sense  than  when  it  is  employed  to 
designate  our  Lord's  immediate  followers?  We  are 
willing  that  this  question  should  be  answered  without 
any  reference  to  the  reasons,  hereafter  to  be  stated,  for 
believing  that  the  word  apostle  is  employed  in  a  plu- 
rality of  meanings.  Even  if  there  were  no  other  rea- 
son for  attaching  to  it  a  double  sense,  this  case  would 
be  just  as  good  a  reason  for  supposing  one,  as  it  is  for 
supposing  Silas  to  have  been  an  Apostle,  in  the 
absence  of  all  proof  from  any  other  quarter.     The  one 


80  ESSAY   III. 

argument  is  this:  Paul  says,  "we,  the  apostles  of 
Christ,"  and  as  Silas  and  Timothy  are  mentioned  with 
him  in  the  title  of  the  epistle,  they  must  be  included ; 
they  were  therefore  Apostles,  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  Paul  was  one.  The  other  argument  is  tliis :  The 
Apostles  were'a  limited' number,  and  Paul  elsewhere 
speaks  of  his  addition  to  it  as  an  extraordinary  thing; 
but  Silas  and  Timothy,  though  often  mentioned,  are 
nowhere  else  called  Apostles  ;  therefore,  when  Paul  so 
calls  them,  he  uses  the  title  in  a  wider  sense.  If  these 
two  arguments  be  only  equal  in  conclusive  force,  they 
balance  one  another,  and  the  passage  cannot  be  em- 
ployed as  proof,  that  Timothy  and  Silas  were  "supreme 
Apostles."  This  is  the  case,  be  it  observed,  on  the  sup- 
position that  the  dTroaroXoi  in  ch.  2  :  6  refers  to  all  the 
men  named  in  ch.  1:1.  But  we  have  already  seen 
that  this  reference  is  doubtful,  and  that  a  different  con- 
struction is,  at  least,  as  plausible.  The  adverse  argu- 
ment, then,  rests  on  two  assumptions ;  that  diro- 
aroXoi  in  ch.  2:  6  refers  to  Timothy  and  Silas,  as  well 
as  Paul,  and  that  it  must  be  taken  in  its  strict  and 
highest  sense  ;  whereas  it  is  at  least  as  probable  that 
it  does  not  refer  to  them,  and  that  if  it  does,  it  does  not 
denote  Apostles  in  the  strict  sense.  To  say  the  least, 
then,  after  every  concession,  this  passage  is  too  doubt- 
ful to  be  made  the  basis  of  an  argument  to  prove,  in 
opposition  to  such  strong  presumptions,  that  the  office 
of  Apostle  was  continued. 

2.  The  other  case,  in  which  there  is  a  doubt  as  to  the 
application  of  the  name  apostle,  is  Pom.  16:7.  Here 
the  phrase  iTrla-Tj/xoc  iv  Toi<i  d7ToaT6Xoi,<i  may  mean  either 
eminent  apostles  or  highly  esteemed  among  (i.  e.  by)  the 
apostles.    Admitting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the 


PERPETUITY   OF   THE    APOSTLESHIP.  81 

former  is  tlie  better  construction,  wc  are  not  shut  up 
to  the  conclusion  that  Andronicus  and  Junias  (or  Junia, 
as  Bishop  Onderdonk  writes  it,  even  while  claiming 
him  or  her  as  an  apostle)  were  Ajjostles  in  the  strict 
sense.  We  have  just  as  much  reason  to  believe,  that 
they  were  Apostles  in  another  sense.  Even  supposing, 
for  the  present,  that  no  such  sense  of  the  term  can  be 
proved  from  usage,  we  have  just  as  much  reason  to 
infer  it  from  this  passage,  as  to  infer  that  these  two 
persons  were  Apostles  in  the  strict  sense.  For  against 
this  inference  lies,  first,  the  whole  weight  of  the  strong 
presumption  that  the  apostolic  office  was  a  temporary 
one ;  and,  secondly,  the  extreme  improbability  that 
two  eminent  apostles,  in  the  strict  sense  of  that  title, 
would  be  thus  named  among  a  crowd  of  private  Chris- 
tians, and  never  heard  of  elsewhere.  Is  it  easier  to 
believe  this  than  that  the  word  apostle  has  a  double 
meaning,  even  supposing  this  to  be  incapable  of  proof 
from  any  other  quarter  ?  We  are  not  now  determin- 
ing the  true  sense  of  the  passage.  We  are  only  show- 
ing that  a  passage  which  admits,  first  of  two  gramma- 
tical constructions,  and  then  (assuming  that  contended 
for  by  our  opponents)  of  two  interpretations,  cannot 
be  regarded  as  decisive  of  so  difficult  and  grave  a 
question  as  the  one  respecting  the  perpetual  or  tem- 
porary nature  of  the  apostolic  office. 

In  these  two  cases,  it  is  doubtful  to  whom  the  name 
Apostle  is  applied  ;  but  in  the  other  three  there  can  be 
no  such  doubt.  It  is  admitted  that  Barnabas,  Epaph- 
roditus,  and  the  brethren  who  accompanied  Titus,  are 
expressly  called  diroaroXoi, ;  and  from  this  the  infer- 
ence is  drawn  by  some  that  the  Apostolic  office, 
strictly  so  called,  was  conferred  upon  these  persons, 


82  ESSAY  III, 

and  that  it  consequently  did  not  cease  with  the  original 
incumbents.  This  inference  involves  the  assumption 
that  the  term  aTroaroXo'i  has  always  the  same  meaning, 
namely,  that  of  Apostle  in  the  strict  sense,  as  denoting 
one  of  the  original  thirteen,  or  a  person  equal  to  them 
in  oflBcial  rank  and  power,  as  a  ruler  of  the  church 
under  Christ  himself.  In  order  to  estimate  the  proba- 
bility of  this  assumption,  it  is  necessary  to  refer  to  the 
analogy  of  other  terms,  used  to  denote  office  in  the 
Christian  church. 

The  other  terms  admitted,  upon  both  sides,  to  be 
so  employed  are  7rp€(7/3vT€po<;,  eTrio-KOTro'^,  SiuKovof;,  ttol- 
[XTjv,  hihdaKoXo'i,  7rpo<pr]T7]'i,  a'yyeA.o?.*  Now  let  it  be 
observed  that,  of  these  seven  words,  not  one  was  in- 
vented for  the  purpose,  or  derived  from  the  Hebrew, 
They  are  all  pure  Greek  words,  used  by  profane  wri- 
ters, and  already  familiar  to  the  Jews  who  spoke  that 
language,  before  they  were  appropriated  to  the  use  in 
question.  From  this  state  of  the  case  it  would  be  na- 
tural and  reasonable  a  priori,  to  cbnclude  that  all  the 
words  would  have  at  least  a  double  sense,  as  used  in 
the  New  Testament,  viz,  a  wide  or  popular  meaning, 
according  to  their  etymology  and  previous  usage,  and 
a  stricter  technical  meaning,  as  appropriated  to  the 
designation  of  ecclesiastical  office.  How  far  this  natu- 
ral presumption  is  confirmed  by  the  actual  usage  of 
the  New  Testament,  may  be  forcibly  stated,  as  to 
some  of  these  terms,  in  the  words  of  a  well-known 
episcopal  writer. 

"  Many  words  have  both  a  loose  and  a  specific 
meaning.     The  word  '  angel '  is  often  applied  loosely 

*  ILvayye\i<TTris  is  omitted,  because  its  precise  meanicg  is  a  matter 
of  dispute.     As  to  the  rest,  there  is  a  general  agreement. 


PERPETUITY   OF   THE   APOSTLESHIP.  83 

(Acts  12  :  15.  Kev.  1 :  20.  9  :  14),  but  distinctively  it 
means  certain  created  spirits.  The  word  'God'  is  ap- 
plied to  angels  (Deut.  10 :  17.  Ps.  97  :  7.  186 :  2),  and 
idols  (Ex.  20 :  3.  23 :  24,  &c.),  and  human  personages 
or  magistrates  (Exod.  7:1.  22  :  28.  Ps.  82  :  1,  6.  138 : 
1.  John  10 :  35) ;  but  distinctively  it  means  the  Su- 
preme Being.  The  word  '  deacon'  means  an  ordinary 
servant,  a  servant  of  God  in  secular  affairs,  and  any 
minister  of  Christ ;  but  a  Christian  minister  of  the 
lower  grade  is  its  specific  meaning.  So  with  the  word 
'  elder ;'  it  is  sometimes  applied  to  the  clergy  of  any 
grade  or  grades  ;  but  its  appropriate  application  is  to 
ministers  of  the  second  or  middle  order.  The  above 
remarks,  it  is  hoped,  will  enable  those  who  feel  an  in- 
terest in  consulting  Scripture  on  the  subject  before  us, 
to  do  so  without  any  embarrassment  from  the  apparent 
confusion  of  oflicial  names  or  titles."''^ 

"  We  would  also  advert  to  the  fact  that,  however 
distinct  may  have  been  the  three  above  Latin  names 
for  the  three  grades  of  sacerdotal  office,  those  names 
of  office  were,  in  the  Greek,  and  at  an  earlier  period, 
applied  but  loosely.  At  least,  they  were  so  in  the 
New  Testament.  Thus  we  read  '  this  ministry  [dea- 
conship]  and  apostleship  (Acts  1 :  25)'  for  the  office  to 
which  Matthias  was  admitted.  '  I  am  the  apostle  of 
the  gentiles,  I  magnify  mine  office'  [my  deaconsMp\ 
'the  ministry  \_deaconship'\  which  I  have  received,'  'ap- 
proving ourselves  as  the  ministers  [deacons]  of  God ' 
(Rom.  11:13.  Acts  20 :  24.  2  Cor.  6 :  4),  are  passages 
applied  by  St.  Paul  to  himself.  AVe  also  read,  '  who 
then  is  Paul,  and  who  is  Apollos,  but  ministers  [clea- 
cons]  by  whom  ye  believed  ?'  (1  Cor.  3 :  5),  and  '  do 
*  Episcopacy  Examined  and  Re-examined,  p.  14. 


84  ESSAY  III. 

the  work  of  an  evangelist^  make  full  proof  of  tlij  minis- 
trj  [deaconship] — thou  slialt  be  a  good  minister  [dea- 
con] of  Jesus  Christ,'  are  admonitions  addressed  to 
Timothy  (2  Tim.  4  :  5.  1  Tim.  4  :  6)."  "  It  may 
not  be  improper  to  add  some  further  illustrations 
of  the  uncertainty  of  official  names.  Thus  we  say  the 
Jewish  '  priesthood,'  including  in  that  term,  with  the 
priests,  the  superior  order  of  high  priests,  and  the  in- 
ferior one  of  levites.  Thus  also  we  have  the  phrase 
'  ministry  [literally  deaconshi}^]  of  reconciliation  ;'  and 
the  expressions,  '  that  the  ministry  \_deaconship\  be  not 
blamed  ;'  '  seeing  we  have  this  ministry  [deojconship]^^ 
'  putting  me  into  the  ministry  [deaconship]^^  and  more 
especially  '  apostles,  prophets,  evangelists,'  &c.,  are  all 
said  to  have  been  given  for  the  work  of  the  ministry 
\deaconshi2j\  (2  Cor.  5:  18.  6:  3.  4:1.  1  Tim.  1:  12. 
Eph.  4:11, 12),  in  all  which  passages  the  word  deacon- 
ship,  SiaKovla,  the  appellation  strictly  of  a  sacred  body 
of  men,  or  of  their  office,  includes,  nay,  signifies  chiefly, 
those  who  are  superior  to  deacons.  The  word  '  pres- 
bytery,' therefore,  being  no  more  definite  than  '  minis- 
try' or  '  deaconship,'  cannot  explain  itself  in  favour  of 
our  opponents."  "  The  mere  expression  presbytery, 
therefore,  does  not  explain  itself,  and  cannot  of  itself 
be  adduced  in  favour  of  parity."* 

These  quotations  from  an  argument  against  the 
doctrine  here  defended,  are  not  made  for  the  sake 
of  the  specific  application  of  an  important  prin- 
cijjle,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  principle  itself,  which 
is,  that  names  of  office  "  do  not  explain  them- 
selves," and  "  cannot  of  themselves  be  adduced  in 
favour"  of  either  side  of  the  question.  An  ob- 
*  Episcopacy  Examined  and  Re-examined,  pp.  20,  21. 


PERPETUITY   OF   THE   APOSTLESHIP.  85 

vious  deduction  from  tliis  rule  is,  that  the  bare  use 
of  the  name  "apostle"  can  prove  nothing  as  to  the 
precise  rank  of  the  men  to  whom  it  is  apphed,  which 
can  only  be  determined  by  a  careful  collation  of  the 
general  usage  with  the  context  in  any  given  case.  Let 
us  proceed  to  this  comparison  ;  but  first  let  us  consider 
the  analogous  usage  of  the  other  titles  which  have  been 
enumerated,  and  which  are  employed  to  designate 
ecclesiastical  ofl&ce.  In  order  to  secure  a  satisfactory 
result,  it  will  be  best  to  survey  them  seriatim. 

1.  H pea ^vT epos  sometimes  means  older,  as  an  ad- 
jective in  the  comparative  degree  (Luke  15 :  25.  John 
8:9);  sometimes  an  old  man  in  the  proper  sense 
(i  Tim.  5 :  1,  where  it  is  put  in  opposition  to  irpea^v- 
repa) ;  sometimes  an  ofiicer  or  magistrate  under  the 
Jewish  commonwealth  (Matt.  21 :  23.  Mark  15 :  1. 
Luke  7 :  3.  Acts  4:8);  sometimes  an  ofiicer  of  the 
Christian  Church  (Acts  15 :  2.  20 :  17.  1  Tim.  5  :  19. 
Tit.  1 :  5.  Jas.  5  :  14). 

2.  'ETTtWoTTo?  (which  occurs  only  five  times  in  the 
New  Testament)  is  in  one  case  applied  to  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  as  the  Head  of  the  Church,  or  the  spiritual 
guardian  of  the  souls  of  all  believers  (1  Peter  2 :  25). 
Elsewhere  it  denotes  the  ofiicial  overseer  of  a  particu- 
lar church  or  congregation  (Acts  20 :  28.  Phil.  1 :  1. 
1  Tim.  3  :  2.  Tit.  1 :  7). 

3.  AtuKovos  sometimes  means  a  menial  servant,  a 
domestic  (Matt.  20 :  26.  22  :  13.  23  :  11.  John  2  :  5,  9) ; 
sometimes  a  minister  or  agent  either  of  good  or  evil 
(Gal.  2:17.  2  Cor.  11 :  15) ;  sometimes  a  secular  rep- 
resentative of  God  (Rom.  13:4);  sometimes  a  minister 
of  the  old  dispensation  (Rom.  15:8);  sometimes  a  min- 
ister of  the  Christian  Church  generally,  without  regard 


86  ESS^Y   III. 

to  rank  (2  Cor.  3:6.  11 :  23.  Eph.  3:7.  6  :  21.  Col. 
1 :  7,  23,  25.  4:7.1  Thess.  3:2.1  Tim.  4:6);  some- 
times a  deacon^  the  lowest  order  of  churcli-officers 
(Phil.  1 :  1.  1  Tim.  3 :  8,  12). 

4.  JJoifnlv  sometimes'  means  a  literal  shepherd 
(Matt.  25  :  32.  Luke  2 :  8,  15,  18,  20) ;  sometimes  a 
spiritual  pastor,  both  in  reference  to  Christ  himself 
(Matt.  26:31.  John  10  :  2,  11, 12,  14,  16.  Heb.  13 :  20. 
1  Pet.  2 :  25),  and  to  his  ministers  (Eph.  4:  11). 

5.  AiSdaKoXo^  sometimes  means  a  teacher  gener- 
ally, as  opposed  to  a  learner  or  disciple  (Matt.  10  :  25. 
Kom.  2 :  20) ;  sometimes  a  public  teacher  of  religion 
(Luke  2 :  46.  John  3 ;  2,  10.  Heb.  5 :  12.  James  3  :  1), 
especially  the  founder  of  a  school  or  sect  (Matt.  9  : 
11. 17  :  24.  Luke  18 :  18) ;  sometimes  an  official  teacher 
in  the  Christian  Church  (Acts  13  :  1.  1  Cor.  12  :  28,  29. 
Eph.  4 :  11.  1  Tim.  2 :  7.  2  Tim.  1:11.  4 :  3). 

6.  npo(pr]T7)^  once  means  a  poet,  regarded  by  the 
heathen  as  inspired  (Tit.  1 :  12).  Elsewhere  it  means, 
sometimes  a  prophet  of  the  old  dispensation  (Matt.  1 : 
22.  8 :  17,  etc.),  sometimes  an  inspired  teacher  in  the 
Christian  Church  (Acts  13 :  1.  1  Cor.  12 :  28,  29.  14 : 
29,  32,  37.  Eph.  4  :  11). 

7.  "AyyeXo'i  sometimes  means  a  human  messenger 
(Luke  9  :  52) ;  sometimes  a  spirit,  good  or  bad  (Matt, 
1 :  20.  25  :  41.  Eev.  3:5);  sometimes  an  ecclesiastical 
superior  (Rev.  1 :  20.   2:1,  8,  12,  18.  3 :  1,  7,  14). 

Now  if  aTToaToXoi  has  one  invariable  meaning  in 
the  New  Testament,  it  is  contrary,  not  only  to  what 
might  have  been  expected  from  the  origin  and  pre- 
vious usage  of  the  term,  but  also  to  the  analogy  of 
the  other  terms  used  in  the  New  Testament,  to  desig- 
nate ecclesiastical  office      The  only  j^robable  supposi- 


PERPETUITY   OF   THE   APOSTLESHIP.  87 

tion  a  priori  is,  that  it  would  have  the  same  variety  of 
meaning  as  the  rest.  Now  of  the  seven  terms,  which 
we  have  been  considering,  the  three  which  occur  most 
frequently  in  application  to  ecclesiastical  office,  have  a 
threefold  usage  perfectly  distinguishable.  They  are 
all  used  in  a  popular  sense,  in  a  general  religious  sense, 
and  in  a  specific  ecclesiastical  sense.  Thus  Trpea^vre- 
po<;  is  used,  in  a  popular  sense,  to  signify  an  old  man ; 
in  a  general  religious  sense,  to  signify  a  minister  of 
any  rank ;  and  in  a  strict  ecclesiastical  sense  to  signify 
a  presbyter.  The  popular  sense  of  Sm/coi'09  is  a  ser- 
vant, its  more  restricted  sense  a  minister,  its  most  re- 
stricted sense  a  deacon.  The  widest  sense  of  hihdaKa- 
X09  is  a  teacher  of  any  kind ;  its  more  restricted  sense 
a  religious  teacher ;  its  most  restricted  sense,  an  author- 
ized official  teacher  in  the  Christian  Church.  The 
three  corresponding  senses  of  the  word  airoaToXo'^ 
would  be :  a  messenger  of  any  kind ;  a  religious  mes- 
senger or  missionary ;  an  apostle  in  the  strict  of- 
ficial sense  before  described.  And  this  distinction, 
suggested  by  analogy,  is  verified  by  usage.  The  first  of 
these  senses  occurs  in  John  13  :  16,  "  the  servant  is  not 
greater  than  his  lord,  neither  he  that  is  sent  {airoaro- 
\os:)  greater  than  he  that  sent  him."  Here  aTroaroXo^i 
stands  in  the  same  relation  to  the  sender,  as  the  servant 
to  the  lord.  The  second  sense  occurs  in  Eom.  11 :  13, 
where  e^vo)v  d'Tr6cno\o<i  means  not  merely  a  Christian 
teacher  of  the  highest  rank,  but  one  sent  out  as  a  mis- 
sionary to  the  heathen.  The  same  idea  is  still  more 
clearly  expressed  in  1  Tim.  2  :  7,  where  the  collocation 
of  the  words  connects  dTroaToXos,  in  a  peculiar  manner, 
with  K7jpv^  and  StSdaKaXos  i'^viov.  The  very  same 
form  of  speech  is  repeated  in  2  Tim.  1 :  11.    In  neither 


88  ESSAY   III. 

of  these  cases  would  the  word  bishop^  in  the  modern 
sense,  seem  natural  in  such  a  position.  If  dnroaroXo'; 
is  here  used  in  the  technical  sense,  without  any  special 
reference  to  its  etymology,  why  is  it  thus  twice  placed 
between  the  titles  preacher  and  teacher  of  the  Gen- 
tiles ?  These  remarks  are  not  designed  to  show,  that 
Paul  was  not  an  Apostle  in  the  strict  sense,  but  that 
the  word  is  sometimes  used  with  special  reference  to 
its  etymology,  and  in  its  secondary  sense  of  a  religious 
messenger  or  missionary.  The  third  or  strict  sense  is 
the  usual  one,  and  need  not  be  exemplified. 

Let  us  now  apply  this  usage  of  the  term  to  the 
three  cases  which  remain  to  be  considered.  1.  It  ap- 
pears from  Phil.  4 :  10-18,  that  the  Philippian  Chris- 
tians had  sent  a  present  to  Paul  at  Eome,  by  the  hands 
of  Epaphroditus.  For  this  act  of  benevolence  the  apos- 
tle heartily  commends  and  thanks  them  in  the  passage 
just  referred  to.  It  is  a  certain  fact,  then,  that  Epa- 
phroditus was  a  ■messenger  from  them  to  Paul,  for  the 
specific  purpose  of  supplying  his  necessities.  When, 
therefore,  in  a  former  part  of  the  same  letter  (ch.  2 :  25) 
Epaphroditus  is  described  in  these  terms,  "  Epaphro- 
ditus, my  brother  and  companion  in  labour  and  fellow- 
soldier  but  your  d'jTocnoko'i^^^  which  is  more  probable, 
that  it  means  an  Apostle  in  the  strict  sense,  or  a  mes- 
senger? The  solution  of  this  question  is  made  still 
more  easy  by  the  words  which  are  added — Xeirovp- 
<yov  TTj^  %/3fia?  i^ov — which  are  clearly  explanatory  of 
viMoiv  he  drroaToXov.  This  interpretation  of  dTr6cno\o<i 
not  only  deducts  one  from  the  alleged  proofs  of  an  addi- 
tion to  the  number  of  apostles,  but  adds  one  to  the 
proofs  that  dTroaroXo'i  is  sometimes  used  in  the  sense 
of  messenger. 


PERPETUITY    OF   THE    APOSTLESHIP.  89 

2.  It  appears  from  2  Cor.  8  :  16—22,  that  Titns,  in 
compliance  with  Paul's  request  and  his  own  strong 
inclination,  was  about  to  visit  Corinth,  and  that  Paul 
sent  with  him  "  the  brother  whose  praise  was  in  the 
gospel  throughout  all  the  churches,*"  and  also  another 
"  brother,  whom  (says  he)  we  have  oftentimes  proved 
diligent  in  many  things,  but  now  much  more  diligent 
upon  the  great  confidence  which  I  have  in  you."  Of 
these  two  persons  who  accompanied  Titus,  one  is  ex- 
pressly said  to  have  been  "chosen  of. the  churches  to 
travel  with  us  [i.  e.  Paul],  with  this  grace  which  is 
administered  by  us,  to  the  glory  of  the  same  Lord  and 
declaration  of  your  ready  mind."  He  was  therefore  a 
messenger  of  the  churches,  and  both  he  and  the  other 
companion  of  Titus  were  messengers  of  Paul  to  the 
church  at  Corinth ;  and  the  other  would  even  seem, 
from  the  last  clause  of  v.  22,  to  have  been  a  messenger 
from  that  church  to  Paul.  These  facts  afford  sufficient 
data  for  the  decision  of  the  question  as  to  the  sense  of 
the  word  cnroaroXoi  in  the  following  sentence.  "  Whe- 
ther any  do  inquire  of  Titus,  he  is  my  partner  and 
fellow  helper  concerning  you;  or  our  brethren  be  in- 
quired of,  they  are  the  airoaroXoL  of  the  churches,  and 
the  glory  of  Christ"  (2  Cor.  8  :  23).  Here  are  two 
cases,  then,  in  which  the  word  is  applied  to  persons, 
who  are  not  known  to  have  been  bishops,  but  who 
are  known  to  have  been  messengers,  and  are  so  de- 
scribed in  the  context.  This  prepares  us  for  the  only 
remaining  case,  that  of  Barnabas. 

3.  Acts  14 :  4,  14.  In  order  to  understand  this 
case  aright,  it  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  the  nature 
of  the  work,  in  which  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  then 
engaged.     This  may  be  stated  in  the  words  of  a  fa- 


90  ESSAY  III. 

vourite  episcopal  writer,  "That  this  transaction  at 
Antioch  [Acts  13  :  1]  related  only  to  a  special  mission- 
ary 'work,'  will  be  found  sufficiently  clear  by  those 
who  will  trace  Paul  and  Barnabas  through  that  work, 
from  Acts  13:4  to  14 :  26 ;  where  its  completion  is 
recorded — '  and  thence  sailed  to  Antioch  from  whence 
they  had  been  recommended  to  the  grace  of  God  for 
the  work  which  they  fulfilled.'  This  '  work,'  their 
missionary  tour,  being  '  fulfilled,'  all  was  fulfilled  that 
had  been  required  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  when  he  had 
them  'separated'  or  'recommended  to  the  grace  of 
God'  'for  the  work  to  which  he  had  called  them.' 
This  call,  therefore,  this  separation,  this  'work,'  re- 
lated only  to  a  particular  mission.  And  this  laying 
on  of  hands  was  no  ordination,  but  a  lesser  ceremony, 
which  has  no  bearing  on  the  controversy  between 
parity  and  episcopacy."  "  When  the  latter  [i.  e.  Bar- 
nabas] had  been  made  an  Apostle,  we  know  not ;  nei- 
ther do  we  know  when  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord, 
Sylvanus,  etc.,  were  admitted  to  that  office."* 

The  case  then  stands  thus:  two  men  are  called 
ciTToaToXoi,  one  of  whom  we  know  to  have  been  an 
Apostle  in  the  highest  sense;  but  when  the  other 
"had  been  made  an  Apostle,  we  know  not."  From 
this  application  of  the  term  our  opponents  infer  that 
both  were  Apostles  in  the  strict  sense.  To  this  we 
might  reply  that  Barnabas  is  here  called  an  Apostle  in 
the  strict  sense,  or  rather  included  in  the  term  d-Troaro- 
\oc — for  he  is  never  so  called  separately,  although  often 
mentioned,  and  several  times  described  (Acts  4 :  36. 
9  :  27.  11 :  24.  13  :  1.  15  :  35) — merely  because  he  was 
Paul's  colleague  in  this  work,  just  as  Silas  is  included 

*  Episcopacy  Examined  and  Re-examined,  pp.  17,  18. 


PERPETUITY   OF  THE   APOSTLESHIP.  91 

in  the  description  of  "Eoman  citizens"  (Acts  16  :  37, 
88),  for  no  reason  that  appears  but  his  connection 
with  Paul,  who  is  expressly  and  repeatedly  declared 
to  have  been  a  Eoman  citizen  (Acts  22 :  25,  26,  27, 
29.  23 :  27).  Even  granting,  therefore,  that  aTrocrro- 
A.09  is  here  used  in  its  strict  sense,  it  is  by  no  means 
certain  that  it  could  have  been  applied,  in  that  sense,  to 
Barnabas  alone ;  the  rather  as  we  have  found  no  other 
case,  in  which  it  is  so  applied,  either  to  him  or  any 
other  person  not  of  the  original  thirteen. 

So  too  on  the  other  hand,  even  admitting  that  he 
is  individually  styled  an  aTroaroXos,  it  does  not  follow 
that  he  is  so  styled  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term. 
The  word,  as  we  have  seen,  is  used  to  denote  three 
things — (1)  a  messenger  of  any  kind — (2)  a  religious 
messenger  or  missionary — (3)  an  apostle  in  the  strict 
sense.  The  name  is  here  applied  to  a  man  who  is  no- 
where else  called  an  ajDOstle  or  described  as  one,  but 
who  was,  at  the  very  time  referred  to,  engaged  with 
Paul  in  "a  sj)ecial  missionary  work,"  a  "missionary 
tour,"  to  which  the  Holy  Ghost  had  called  them;  for 
"  this  call,  this  separation,  this  work,  related  only  to  a 
particular  mission."  Under  these  circumstances,  which 
is  more  probable,  that  a.Troa-roXo'i,  as  thus  used,  means 
a  missionary^  or  that  it  means  a  supreme  ruler  of  the 
church,  equal  in  rank  to  the  original  thirteen  ?  If  it 
means  the  latter,  it  is  sixigular,  to  say  the  least,  that 
Barnabas,  who  is  so  often  mentioned  and  repeatedly 
described,  is  nowhere  else  called  an  Apostle,  which, 
in  the  case  supposed,  was  his  grand  distinction.  But 
if,  on  the  other  hand,  he  is  so  called  in  the  lower  sense, 
it  is  easy  to  explain  why  he  is  nowhere  else  so  called, 
to  wit,  because  his  apostolic  character  was  temporary. 


92  ESSAY   III. 

"This  work,  this  missionary  tour,  being  fulfilled,  all 
was  fulfilled  that  had  been  required  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  when  he  hadthem  separated  or  recommended 
to  the  grace  of  God,  for  the  work  to  which  he  had 
called  them.  This  call,  this  separation,  this  work, 
related  only  to  a  particular  mission."  True,  he  after- 
wards went'  out  upon  a  similar  mission,  but  not,  as  it 
would  seem,  under  church  authority,  nor  is  the  narra- 
tive of  that  mission  upon  record.  Paul,  on  the  con- 
trary, was  still  an  Apostle,  and  is  still  so  called,  which 
makes  it  at  least  probable  that  he  was  an  Apostle  in  a 
higher  sense  than  Barnabas. 

Still  it  ma}^  be  argued  that  as  both  are  called  Apos- 
tles, and  as  Paul  was  certainly  one  in  the  highest  sense, 
the  inference  is  plain  that  Barnabas  was  also  an  Apos- 
tle in  the  highe&t  sense.  This  would  be  valid  reason- 
ing if  it  were  not  equally  certain  that  Paul  was  an 
Apostle  in  the  lower  sense  too.  One  of  the  senses  of 
the  word  applies  to  both  ;  another  applies  certainly  to 
one  of  them.  Which  is  more  reasonable,  to  infer  that 
the  latter  applied  also  to  the  other,  or  to  infer  that  the 
former  is  the  sense  here  intended?  In  the  one  case, 
this  solitary  passage  is  adduced  to  prove  what  is  no- 
where else  recorded,  viz.  that  Barnabas  was  strictly 
an  Apostle.  In  the  other  case,  nothing  is  assumed  or 
supposed  to  be  here  proved,  but  what  is  clearly  re- 
vealed elsewhere,  viz.  that  both  Barnabas  and  Paul 
were  missionaries. 

The  argument  admits  of  a  familiar  illustration. 
In  the  foreign  missions  of  our  own  and  other  churches, 
the  word  "missionary"  has  a  double  sense;  a  strict 
one  applicable  only  to  ordained  ministers  or  clergy- 
men, and  a  wider  one  including  lay-assistants.     The 


PERPETUITY   OF   THE   APOSTLESHIP.  93 

first  is  considered  the  most  proper,  and  is  certainly  the 
most  usual  sense ;  but  the  other ,  does  undoubtedly 
occur,  even  in  the  official  documents  of  missionary 
boards,  especially  when  several  or  all  of  those  engaged 
in  the  work  are  spoken  of  collectively.  Let  us  sup- 
pose then  that  in  a  certain  mission  two  persons,  A  and 
B,  have  long  been  labouring,  the  first  as  a  preacher, 
the  second  as  a  lay-assistant,  but  that  in  some  one  re- 
port or  journal  they  are  twice  mentioned  by  the  com- 
mon name  of  missionaries^  and  it  becomes  a  question 
with  some  readers  of  the  document,  whether  B  was 
not  an  ordained  minister.  On  examining  the  series  of 
reports  and  journals,  it  is  found  that  B  is  nowhere 
else  even  called  a  missionary,  and  that  in  the  case  in 
question  no  act  is  ascribed  to  him  which  necessarily 
implies  that  he  is  an  ordained  minister.  From  these 
premises  two  opposite  inferences  are  drawn.  The  one 
is,  that  as  A  is  certainly  a  clergyman,  and  as  both  are 
called  missionaries,  B  must  be  a  clergyman  also.  The 
other  is,  that  as  B  is  nowhere  else  represented  as  a 
clergyman,  and  as  both  he  and  A  are  certainly  mis- 
sionaries in  a  wider  sense,  that  is  the  sense  in  which 
the  term  is  used.  Without  insisting  on  a  choice  be- 
tween these  opposite  deductions,  as  entirely  conclusive, 
we  may  ask  what  would  be  thought  of  an  argument 
to  prove  a  doubtful  point,  as  to  the  organization  of 
the  mission,  from  the  mere  application  of  the  term  in 
such  a  case  ?  But  in  the  case  of  Barnabas  there  is  this 
distinctive  circumstance,  that  the  antecedent  proba- 
bility is  in  favour  of  the  supposition,  that  the  apostolic 
office,  in  the  strict  sense,  was  confined  to  a  certain 
number  of  persons,  among  whom  Barnabas  was  not ; 
and  that  this  presumption  can  only  be  removed  by 
positive  proof  that  he  was  an  Apostle, 


94  ESSAY   III. 

The  amount,  tlien,  of  the  argument  from  names  is 
this,  that  of  five  cases,  in  which  the  name  apostle  is 
said  to  be  apphed  to  persons  not  of  the  original  thir- 
teen, there  are  two  in  which  the  application  is  itself 
disputed,  and  at  least  so  far  doubtful  as  to  render  them 
unfit  to  be  relied  on  as  proofs  ;  while  in  these  cases, 
and  in  all  the  rest,  the  word  either  requires  or  admits 
another  sense  than  that  of  an  Apostle  proper.  These 
cases,  therefore,  make  no  change  in  the  truth  of  the 
general  proposition,  that  the  extension  of  the  Apos- 
tolic office  to  persons  not  of  the  original  thirteen,  is 
nowhere  taught  in  Scripture,  either  directly,  by  ex- 
plicit assertion  of  the  fact,  or  indirectly,  by  the  appli- 
cation of  the  name  Apostle,  in  its  strict  and  highest 
sense. 

III.  A  third  argument  in  favour  of  the  propo- 
sition, that  the  Apostolic  office  was  a  temporary  one, 
is  that  the  qualifications  for  the  Apostleship,  as  a  per- 
manent office  in  the  church,  are  nowhere  stated. 
Even  supposing  that  an  explicit  statement  of  the  fact 
might  easily  have  been  omitted,  which  is  not  the 
case,  and  that  the  absence  of  any  unequivocal  appli- 
cation of  the  name  may  be  accounted  for,  which  seems 
impossible,  the  question  still  arises,  why  are  the  quali- 
fications of  an  "  Apostle-bishop"  not  revealed  ?  It  is 
not  enough  to  say,  because  Paul  or  Peter  has  not  left 
epistles  to  those  who  were  to  consecrate  Apostle- 
bishops.  Granting  the  fact,  why  was  not  such  a  reve- 
lation made?  Were  the  instructions  to  Timothy  and 
Titus,  as  to  "  Presbyter-bishops,"  given  without  ne- 
cessity? If  not,  why  was  not  an  occasion  sought  or 
made  for  giving  the  qualifications  of  Apostles  ?  Be- 
cause this  office  demands  none  in  particular,  or  be- 


PERPETUITY   OF   THE   APOSTLESHIP.  95 

cause  it  is  less  important  tlian  the  others  ?  It  may  be 
said,  indeed,  that  we  have  no  right  to  inquire  why 
certain  things  have  been  revealed  and  others  not. 
But  this  would  be  a  mere  evasion  of  the  argument  by 
the  misapplication  of  an  acknowledged  principle.  The 
question  is  not  what  should  have  been,  but  what  has 
been  revealed ;  and  if  both  parties  are  agreed  that  certain 
offices  are  recognized  in  the  New  Testament,  and  the 
qualifications  for  those  offices  carefully  detailed,  and  if 
one  of  the  parties  alleges  that  another  office  is  there 
recognized,  the  other  party  has  a  right  to  ask  how  the 
omission  of  its  qualifications  is  to  be  explained  upon 
the  opposite  hypothesis.  This  would  be  the  case, 
even  if  the  disputed  office  were  the  lowest.  If,  for 
example,  the  qualifications  of  Deacons  had  nowhere 
been  given,  the  evidence  of  such  an  office,  as  a  perma- 
nent order  in  the  church,  would  be  much  less  conclu- 
sive than  that  of  the  Presbyterate,  although  Deacons 
are  expressly  mentioned,  in  connection  with  the  Pres- 
byters or  Bishops,  in  two  of  Paul's  epistles.  How 
much  inferior,  then,  is  the  evidence  that  Apostles  were 
permanent  officers  of  the  church,  when  both  these 
proofs  are  wanting !  And  how  much  weaker  still 
when  we  consider  the  paramount  importance  attached 
to  the  apostolic  office  by  the  adverse  party  ! 

Even  admitting,  then,  that  no  occasion  does  pre- 
sent itself  in  the  New  Testament,  as  it  stands,  for  the 
detail  of  the  qualifications  of  Apostles,  that  very  cir- 
cumstance increases,  in  a  high  degree,  the  improba- 
bility that  such  an  office  was  intended  to  be  perma- 
nently established.  But  this  admission  is  gratuitous. 
By  whom  were  subsequent  apostles  to  be  consecrated, 
if  not  by  their  predecessors  in  the  office  ?     If,  then. 


96  ESSAY   III. 

Timothy  and  Titus  were  apostles,  and  addressed  as 
sucli  in  Paul's  epistles,  why  does  he  not  instruct  them 
in  relation  to  the  paramount  importance  of  admitting 
only  qualified  men  to  that  high  station?  Is  it  because 
the  same  qualifications  which  are  required  in  presby- 
ters are  also  required  in  apostles  ?  Even  if  this  were 
so,  the  great  alleged  superiority  of  the  apostolic  office 
would  entitle  it  to  the  honour  of  a  separate  enactment, 
especially  as  presbyters  and  deacons  are  distinctly 
treated,  though  the  qualifications  for  these  two  offices 
are  almost  identical.  This  difficulty  is  not  merely 
theoretical,  but  practical ;  for  how  are  the  qualifica- 
tions of  Apostle-bishops  now  to  be  determined?  By 
what  test  shall  they  be  judged?  Those  described  in 
the  first  chapter  of  Acts  are  totally  inapplicable  to  all 
modern  cases.  How  then  is  it  to  be  ascertained 
whether  those  admitted  now  to  the  alleged  rank  of 
Apostles  are  as  certainly  possessed  of  the  necessary 
qualifications  as  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  who  are  tried 
by  the  directions  which  Paul  gave  to  Timothy  and 
Titus  ?  It  is  not  pretended  that  this  omission  is  itself 
sufficient  to  disprove  the  perpetuity  of  the  Apostolic 
office,  but  merely  that  it  renders  it  so  far  improbable 
as  to  require  the  most  explicit  proof  to  establish  it. 

But  even  this  is  not  a  full  view  of  the  subject  of 
apostolical  qualifications.  It  is  not  only  true  that  no 
account  is  given  of  the  qualifications  of  Apostle- 
bishops,  as  permanent  officers  in  the  church,  after  it 
had  been  planted  by  the  original  Apostles ;  but  also 
that  the  qualifications  which  are  given  of  an  original 
Apostle  are  of  such  a  nature  as  to  discountenance,  in 
a  high  degree,  the  opinion  that  the  office  was  intended 
to  be  permanent.     When  the  death  of  Judas  made  a 


PERPETUITY    OF   THE    APOSTLESHIP.  97 

vacancy  in  the  apostolic  body,  the  disciples  proceeded 
to  elect  a  successor,   and  Peter,  in  the  name  of  the 
eleven,  declared  the  qualifications  which  were  requisite. 
These  were,  first,  that  the  candidate  should  have  been 
one  of  Christ's  original  followers ;  secondly,  that  he 
should  be  a  witness  of  the  resurrection  (Acts  1 :  21,  22). 
The  obvious  prima  facie  inference  from  this  is  cer- 
tainly that  none  could  be  apostles  who  were  destitute 
of  .these  qualifications.     And  this  is  very  much  con- 
firmed by  the  case  of  Paul,  who  seems  not  to  have 
known  the  Saviour  personally,  during  his  abode  on 
the  earth,  but  who,  in  vindicating  his  own  claim  to  an 
equality   of  rank   with   the   eleven,    says   expressly, 
"  Have  I  not  seen  the  Lord  Jesus?" — thereby  admit- 
ting that  to  have  seen  him  was  necessary  to  the  apos- 
tolic character.    This  might  be  urged,  with  plausibility 
at  least,  as  a  direct  proof  that  the  Apostolic  office  was 
a  temporary  one,   because  the  number  of  those  who 
had  actually  seen  Christ  after   his   resurrection  was 
limited,   and  must  soon  be    exhausted.     All  that  is 
now  alleged,  however,  is  that  the  absence  of  express 
declarations  that  the  Apostolic  office  was  continued  in 
the  church,  is  the  more  difficult  to  be  exjDlained  on  the 
opposite  hypothesis,  because  when  the  qualifications  of 
church- officers   are   given,    in   two   separate   epistles, 
those  of  Apostles  are  not  included ;  and  because  the 
only  requisites  prescribed  in  the  election  of  a  man  to 
fill  a  vacancy  in  the  original  apostolic  body,  are  pre- 
cisely such  as  cannot  be  possessed  by  any  men  at 
present. 

It  may,  however,  be  alleged,  that  although  the 
permanence  of  the  apostolic  office  is  not  explicitly  as- 
serted, and   although   the   qualifications  of  Apostle- 


yo  ESSAY   III. 

bishops  are  not  given,  and  althougli  the  name  Apostle, 
in  its  highest  sense,  is  not  applied  to  any  but  the 
original  thirteen ;  others  are,  nevertheless,  spoken  of 
as  actually  exercising  apostolic  powers,  and  that  as  it 
is  the  thing,  and  not  the  name,  which  is  really  in 
question,  this  is  sufficient  to  establish  the  perpetuity 
of  the  Apostleship,  Before  proceeding  to  examine 
the  grounds  of  this  allegation,  there  are  two  prelimi- 
nary observations  to  be  made  upon  it. 

1.  The  omission  of  the  name  Apostle  is  by  no 
means  an  unimportant  circumstance.  The  title  was 
not  so  regarded  in  the  original  institution.  It  did  not 
grow  out  of  circumstances,  nor  was  it,  in  any  sense, 
the  result  of  accident.  It  is  not  said,  in  an  incidental 
way,  that  the  twelve  were  called  apostles,  as  it  is  said 
that  the  disciples  were  called  Christians  at  Antioch ; 
but  we  are  told,  that  our  Lord  "  called  unto  him  his 
disciples,  and  of  them  he  chose  twelve,  whom  also  he 
NAMED  Apostles"  (Luke  6  :  13).  The  office  and  the 
name  were  conferred  by  the  same  authority.  When 
the  persons  thus  chosen  are  afterwards  mentioned,  it 
is  coramonl}''  by  the  name  which  Christ  bestowed  at 
first,  or  by  that  of  "  the  twelve,"  denoting  their  limited 
number.  After  our  Lord's  ascension,  there  seems  to  be 
no  instance  of  the  Apostles,  in  the  strict  sense,  being 
called  by  any  indefinite  name.  Now  these  two  facts, 
that  the  name  was  coeval  with  the  office  and  recorded  as 
a  matter  of  some  moment,  and  that  the  original  Apos- 
tles are  almost  always,  and  after  Christ's  ascension  al- 
ways, called  by  it  or  some  other  title  equally  definite, 
render  it  a  priori  highly  probable,  that  if  the  office 
was  to  be  continued,  the  name  would  be  continued 
with  it ;  and  that  if  continued  in  common  parlance,  it 


PERPETUITY  OF  THE  APOSTLESHIP.  99 

■would  be  applied  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  that  if 
applied  at  all,  it  would  be  applied  with  greater  fre- 
quency than  ever  after  the  name  had  been  extended 
to  a  multitude  of  persons.  How  is  it  that  as  the  num- 
ber of  apostles  increased,  the  mention  of  the  name  be- 
comes less  frequent,  even  when  the  organization  of  the 
church  and  the  qualifications  of  its  officers  are  the 
subject  of  discourse  ?  These  considerations  will  per- 
haps suffice  to  show,  that  the  failure  to  establish  the 
explicit  application  of  the  name  Apostle  to  the  alleged 
successors  of  the  original  thirteen  is  by  no  means  a 
matter  of  indifference,  even  if  it  can  be  shown  that 
they  possessed  and  exercised  apostolic  powers.  Not 
that  the  actual  possession  and  exercise  of  peculiar  apos- 
tolic powers  does  not  prove  them  to  have  been  apos- 
tles; but  the  omission  of  the  title  makes  it  harder 
to  establish  the  fact  of  such  possession  and  exercise, 
and  entitles  us  to  call  for  more  explicit  proof  than 
might  otherwise  be  necessary. 

2.  Before  the  exercise  of  apostolic  powers  by  per- 
sons not  of  the  original  thirteen  can  be  adduced  in 
proof  of  the  permanent  continuance  of  the  apostolic 
office,  it  must  be  determined  what  are  apostolic  pow- 
ers. It  cannot  mean  all  the  powers  of  the  original 
apostles ;  for  some  of  these  are  admitted,  on  both  sides, 
to  have  ceased.  It  cannot  mean  any  of  these  powers 
indefinitely ;  for  some  of  them  are  admitted,  on  both 
sides,  to  be  lawfully  exercised  by  presbyters ;  and  this 
would  prove  that  presbyters  are  the  successors  of  the 
apostles  in  the  highest  of  their  powers  which  did  not 
cease.  If  the  possession  of  any  apostolic  powers  is  a 
proof  of  the  succession,  then  the  succession  is  in  pres- 
byters.    If  the  possession  of  all  the  apostolic  powers  is 


100  ESSAY   III. 

necessary  to  establish  a  succession,  then  there  is  none 
at  all.  Either  of  these  conclusions  would  be  fatal  to 
the  adverse  argument,  which  cannot  have  the  slightest 
force,  except  on  two  conditions ;  first,  that  the  apos- 
tolic powers,  shown  to  have  been  exercised  by  persons 
not  of  the  original  thirteen,  be  such  as  are  not  acknow- 
ledged to  have  ceased ;  and  then,  that  they  be  such 
as  were  not  exercised  by  Presbyters.  For  if  they  were 
powers  possessed  by  Presbyters,  their  exercise  proves 
nothing  but  the  continuance  of  that  office,  which  is  not 
disputed ;  and  if  they  were  powers  which  have  ceased, 
their  exercise  in  apostolic  times  proves  nothing  as  to 
the  rights  and  powers  of  any  office  now  existing  in  the 
church. 


ESSAY    IV. 


ON   THE   OFFICIAL   EANK   OF  TIMOTHY   AND   TITUS. 

I  HAVE  endeavoured  to  show  that  the  Apostolic  office 
was  not  meant  to  be  perpetual ;  first,  because  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  office  is  nowhere  explicitly  asserted  ; 
secondly,  because  the  name  Apostle,  in  its  strict  and 
proper  sense,  is  not  applied  in  the  New  Testament  to 
any  who  were  not  of  the  original  thirteen ;  thirdly, 
because  the  qualifications  for  the  Apostleshij),  as  a 
permanent  office  in  the  church,  are  nowhere  stated. 

A  fourth  argument  against  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Apostolic  office  is,  that  no  peculiar  apostolic  powers 
are  said  in  Scripture  to  have  been  exercised  by  any 
person,  who  was  not  either  an  original  Apostle  or  a 
Presbyter. 

The  only  cases  commonly  alleged  by  controversial 
writers  on  this  subject  are  those  of  Timothy  and  Titus, 
and  the  allegation,  even  with  respect  to  them,  is  not 
founded  on  the  historical  statements  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, but  on  the  instructions  given  them  by  Paul,  in 
his  epistles  addressed  to  them  respectively.  Let  this 
fact  be  duly  noted  and  borne  in  mind,  when  we  ex- 
amine the  proof  from  the  epistles.     If,  in  the  Acts  of 


102  ESSAY  IV. 

the  Apostles,  Timothy  and  Titus  appeared  as  the 
equals  and  colleagues  of  Paul,  this  would  create  a  pre- 
sumption in  favour  of  their  having  been  Apostles ;  and 
this  presumption  would  materially  influence  the  in- 
terpretation of  his  epistles  to  them ;  that  is  to  say, 
expressions  of  a  dubious  import  might  be  fairly  inter- 
preted so  as  to  agree  with  the  presumption  afforded 
by  the  history.  But  what  is  the  true  state  of  the  case 
in  this  respect  ? 

The  first  mention  of  Timothy  is  in  Acts  16  :  1, 
where  we  read  that  Paul  came  to  Derbe  and  Lystra, 
and  found  a  certain  disciple  there,  named  Timotheus, 
the  son  of  a  believing  Jewess  and  of  a  Greek  or 
heathen  father.  The  son  was  well  reported  of  by  the 
brethren  that  were  at  Lystra  and  Iconium.  "Him 
would  Paul  have  to  go  forth  with  him,  and  took  and 
circumcised  him,  because  of  the  Jews  which  were  in 
those  quarters,  for  they  all  knew  that  his  father  was  a 
Greek." 

In  the  subsequent  narrative  it  is  hard  to  tell 
whether  Timothy  is  represented  as  performing  even 
ordinary  ministerial  functions,  as  Silas  was  also  in 
Paul's  company,  and  the  plural  forms  of  speech  em- 
ployed may  be  restricted  to  these  two.  In  the  account 
of  the  persecution  at  Philippi  (Acts  16 :  19 — 40),  Timo- 
thy is  not  mentioned,  and  in  ch.  17 :  4,  10,  "Paul  and 
Silas"  are  mentioned  without  Timothy,  who  was  still 
in  their  company,  however,  as  appears  from  Acts 
17 :  14,  15.  18 :  5.  The  omission  of  his  name  seems  to 
show  that  he  was  not  so  intimately  related  to  Paul,  at 
this  time,  as  Silas  was.  The  office  of  Timothy  would 
indeed  appear  to  have  been  precisely  that  which  John 
Mark  sustained  in  Paul's  first  mission,  namely,  that 


OFFICIAL  BANK  OF  TIMOTHY.  103 

of  an  vTTijpeTij^;^  a  personal  attendant  (Acts  18 :  5).  And 
accordingly  we  find  Timothy  and  Erastus  afterwards 
described  by  an  equivalent  expression,  Bvo  rcov  Biuko- 
vovvTMv  avTM  (Acts  19 :  22).  They  are  called  ministers, 
not  of  God  (2  Cor.  6  :  4),  not  of  Christ  (2  Cor.  11 :  23), 
not  of  the  gospel  (Eph,  3 :  7),  not  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment (2  Cor.  3 :  6),  not  of  the  church  (Col.  1 :  52),  but 
of  Paul,  i.  e.  personal  attendants  on  him.  Or  if  they 
were  ministers  in  a  higher  sense,  their  relative  position, 
with  respect  to  Paul,  was  that  of  SiaKovot  to  an  official 
superior.  Timothy  next  appears  as  the  fifth  in  the 
list  of  Paul's  companions  on  his  return  from  Greece  to 
Syria  (Acts  20 :  4),  in  which  list  Silas,  Paul's  colleague 
in  the  mission,  is  not  included.  These  are  all  the  traces 
which  we  find  of  Timothy  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ; 
and  in  these,  he  acts  no  other  part  than  that  of  an 
attendant  upon  Paul. 

That  he  became  a  minister,  a  Siukovo^  in  the  higher 
sense,  a  presbyter,  a  preacher  of  the  gospel,  is  admitted. 
Hence  in  the  epistle  to  the  Komans  (16  :  21),  Paul 
speaks  of  him  as  his  "  work-fellowj"  a  title,  however, 
which  would  not  have  been  inapplicable  to  him,  even 
as  a  lay  attendant.  In  the  first  epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians, he  mentions  him  twice,  once  as  his  "beloved 
son  and  faithful  in  the  Lord"  (ch,  4:  17),  and  again 
as  "one  that  worketh  the  work  of  the  Lord  as  I  also 
do  "  (ch.  16 :  10).  That  this  does  not  imply  official 
equality  between  them  as  Apostles,  is  clear,  because 
the  terms  are  perfectly  applicable  to  the  ordinary  work 
of  the  ministry ;  because  the  phrase  "  worketh  the 
work  of  the  Lord"  is  more  applicable  to  the  ordinary 
work  of  the  ministry  than  to  peculiar  apostolic  func- 
tions ;    and  because  in  this  very  epistle   (ch.  4  :  17. 


104  ESSAY   IV. 

16  :  10,  11),  Paul  directs  the  movements  of  Timothy, 
as  those  of  an  inferior. 

In  the  second  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  Timothy 
is  mentioned  in  the  title  as  folloAvs :  "  Paul  an  Apostle 
of  Jesus  Christ  by  the  will  of  God,  and  Timothy  the 
brother,"  If  Timothy  had  been  then  an  Apostle, 
could  there  have  been  a  more  appropriate  occasion  so 
to  call  him?  Could  it  well  have  been  avoided?  And 
if  the  mention  of  his  apostolic  character  had  been  neg- 
lected once,  could  the  omission  be  repeated  as  it  is  in 
the  title  of  Colossians  ?  It  may  indeed  be  said  that  in 
the  title  of  the  epistle  to  Pliilemon,  Paul  is  called  "  a 
prisoner  of  Jesus  Christ "  and  Timothy  "  a  brother," 
whereas  both  were  prisoners.  But  in  Heb.  lo :  28,  an 
epistle  of  the  same  date,  it  is  said,  "  know  ye  that  our 
brother  Timothy  is  set  at  liberty.  Besides,  Secr/iio?  is 
no  title  of  office  like  drr6aToXo<;. 

This  argument  from  the  use  of  the  word  "brother," 
where  "Apostle"  might  have  been  expected,  has  been 
very  summarily  set  aside  as  follows.  "  Why  does  Paul 
in  some  places  call  himself  an  Apostle,  and  Timothy 
only  a  brother  ?  .  .  .  .  Really  it  is  too  late  to  inquire ; 
but  the  fact  has  not  the  least  bearing  on  the  point  in 
question.  The  Apostles  were  brethren  to  each  other, 
the  elders  were  brethren  to  the  Apostles,  so  were  the 
deacons ;  so  were  the  laity.  The  circumstance,  there- 
fore, of  Paul's  calling  Timothy  a  brother,  while  'he 
calls  himself  an  Apostle,  proves  no  more  that  Timothy 
was  not  an  Apostle,  than  it  does  that  he  was  not  a 
clergyman  at  all,  but  only  a  layman."* 

This  explanation  takes  for  granted,  that  the  argu- 
ment,   to   which    it    is    an    answer,    depends    for    its 

*  Episcopacy  Examined  and  Re-examined,  p.  50, 


OFFICIAL  RANK  OF  TIMOTHY.  105 

validity  upon  the  meaning  of  tlie  word  dSeXcjio'?, 
which  is  not  the  case.  The  argument  is  not  that 
Timothy  was  no  Apostle  because  Paul  calls  him  a 
brother,  but  because  Paul  does  not  call  him  an  Apostle 
when  he  calls  himself  one.  The  case  would  have 
been  substantially  the  same,  if  any  other  title  had 
been  given  to  Timothy,  or  none  at  all.  If,  for 
example,  he  had  said,  "  Paul  an  Apostle  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  Timothy,"  the  inference  would  still  have 
been  that  Timoth}^  was  no  Apostle,  not  because  Paul 
describes  him  as  being  something  else,  but  because  he 
does  not  describe  him  as  being  an  Apostle,  in  the  very 
circumstances  where  such  a  description,  if  consistent 
with  the  fact,  would  seem  to  be  unavoidable.  It  matters 
not,  then,  how  vague  or  indecisive  the  term  "brother" 
may  be,  in  itself  considered,  or  when  separately  used. 
If  Paul  had  merely  called  Timothy  "a  brother,"  the 
term  would  have  had  no  distinctive  meaning ;  but 
when  put  in  opposition  to  "  apostle,"  it  becomes  dis- 
tinctive, as  in  Acts  15 :  23,  where  "apostles,  presbyters, 
and  brethren  "  are  enumerated.  Are  not  three  distinct 
classes  here  intended?  Yet  "the  apostles  were  breth- 
ren to  each  other,  the  elders  were  brethren  to  the  apos- 
tles, so  were  the  laity."  But  the  vague  term  hrethren^ 
when  connected  with  the  specific  titles  apostles  and 
elders^  itself  acquires  a  specific  meaning. 

That  this  is  the  case  in  Acts  15  :  6,  23,  may  be 
proved  by  the  same  high  authority  which  denies  it  in 
the  case  before  us.  "These  two  classes  of  ministers 
are  distinguished  from  each  other  in  the  passages 
which  speak  of  them  as  'apostles  and  elders,'  or 
which  enumerate  'apostles  and  elders  and  brethren,' 
or   the   laity.      If  'priests   and   levites,'   if  'bishops 


106  ESSAY   IV. 

and  deacons,'  are  allowed  to  be  distinct  orders,  if 
'  apostles  and  brethren '  are  also  allowed  to  be  dis- 
tinct orders,  then  on  tlie  same  principle  that  the 
conjunction  is  not  exegetical,  'apostles  and  elders' 
may  fairly  be  accounted  distinct  orders  likewise. 
And  as  in  the  expression  '  apostles  a7id  elders  and 
brethren '  severalty  is  unquestionably  implied  between 
the  latter  of  these  three  classes  and  the  others,  it  must 
as  clearly  be  implied  between  the  former  two.  Apos- 
tles were  therefore  one  class,  and  elders  another 
class,  just  as  the  laity  were  a  third  class."* 

There  seems  to  be  no  I'eason  why  the  principle  thus 
clearly  and  correctly  stated  in  relation  to  the  plural 
forms  "apostles  and  brethren,"  should  not  apply  to 
the  singular  forms  "  apostle  and  brother."  If  it  be  said 
that  in  the  latter  case,  d86\(p6'?  is  not  the  specific  designa- 
tion of  a  class,  as  dSeXcfiOL  is  in  the  other,  it  may  be  replied 
that  aSeA-^o/owes  its  specific  meaning  to  its  combination 
with  two  other  terms  of  office.  This  may  be  rendered 
clear  by  supposing  that  certain  persons  had  been  men- 
tioned in  Acts  XV.  as  ol  aSeX^ot  simply,  without  the 
use  of  any  other  title.  The  term  would  then  be  per- 
fectly indefinite,  and  we  should  be  left  to  gather  from 
the  context  or  to  guess  whether  it  signified  apostles, 
or  apostles  and  elders,  or  the  whole  bod}^  of  believers. 
But  when  employed  in  combination  with  the  other 
terms,  it  necessarily  acquires  a  distinct  sense  analo- 
gous to  them.  Why  then  is  not  the  same  effect  pro- 
duced upon  the  meaning  of  the  singular  dSeX<p6i  b}^  its 
combination  with  the  singular  d7r6aTo\o<;?  It  is  not 
disputed  that  the  latter  is  as  much  a  name  of  office  as 
aTTocTToXoi,  in  Acts  XV.     There  is  no  reason  therefore 

*  Episcapacy  Examined  and  Re-examined,  pp.  14.  15. 


OFFICIAL  RANK  OF  TIMOTHY.  107 

for  supposing  that  d8eX(:}36<i  is  not  as  distinctive  in  its 
meaning  as  dSeXtpoL 

The  perfect  analogy  between  the  cases  -^^^ill  be 
clear  if  we  advert  to  the  grammatical  principle  on 
which  the  general  expression  brethren,  as  used  in 
Acts,  acquires  a  specific  meaning.  Since  the  name, 
in  itself,  was  applicable  to  the  apostles  and  presby- 
ters as  well  as  the  lay-brethren,  it  would  embrace 
them  all  unless  its  meaning  had  been  limited  by 
the  express  mention  of  two  classes  comprehended 
under  the  generic  term.  That  is  to  say,  the  name 
dBeXcpoL  comprehends  apostles,  presbyters,  and  private 
Christians,  and  when  used  alone  might  be  naturally 
understood  to  signify  them  all.  But  when  either  of 
those  classes  is  expressly  mentioned  by  its  proper  title, 
the  general  term,  if  still  used,  must  of  course  be  used 
to  signify  the  rest.  Thus  "  apostles  and  elders  and 
brethren  "  means  "  apostles  and  elders  (who  are  not 
apostles)  and  brethren  (who  are  neither  apostles  nor 
elders)."  So  too  "an  apostle  and  a  brother"  means 
"an  apostle  and  a  brother  (who  is  not  an  apostle)." 
Or  if  it  does  not,  some  reason  should  be  given  for  the 
use  of  an  expression  which  seems  just  as  distinctive 
as  the  one  in  Acts. 

I  have  said,  however,  that  the  strength  of  the  argu- 
ment does  not  depend  upon  the  meaning  ofdSe\(f)6^,  and 
that  even  if  that  word  had  been  omitted,  the  natural  in- 
ference would  still  have  been  that  Timothy  was  no  Apos- 
tle. This  admits  of  illustration  from  analogy.  When 
Cicero  and  Antony  were  consuls,  it  is  scarcel}^  conceiva- 
ble that  a  joint  official  letter  from  them  could  have  been 
inscribed  as  follows :  "  M.  T.  Cicero  Consul  et  M.  Anto- 
nius  Civis  Romanus."    Such  an  inscription  would  have 


108  ESSAY  IV. 

been  universally  regarded  as  presumptive  evidence 
that  the  Antony  thus  mentioned  was  not  at  the  time 
consul ;  a  presumption  capable  of  being  removed,  but 
only  by  positive  proof  of  the  most  conclusive  kind, 
including  the  assignment  of  some  reason  for  the  obvi- 
ous distinction  drawn  between  the  colleagues.  But 
why  should  such  proof  be  required?  The  terms  of 
the  inscription  would  be  absolutely  true,  even  if  An- 
tony was  consul ;  for  both  he  and  his  colleague  were 
Roman  citizens,  and  there  is  nothing  inconsistent  with 
the  fact  in  giving  Cicero  a  specific  name  and  Antony 
a  generic  one.  All  this  is  true,  and  yet  it  would  be 
wholly  inconclusive  for  this  reason,  that  the  inference, 
as  to  Antony's  not  being  consul,  was  not  founded  on 
the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the  title  civis^  nor  on  its  gen- 
eral or  specific  sense,  but  on  the  unaccountable  distinc- 
tion drawn  between  him  and  his  colleague,  by  the 
marked  application  of  the  official  title  to  one  of  them 
exclusively. 

This  view  of  the  matter  serves  to  show  the  fallacy 
involved  in  the  assertion  that  "  Paul's  calling  Timo- 
thy a  brother,  while  he  calls  himself  an  Apostle, 
proves  no  more  that  Timothy  was  not  an  Apostle 
than  it  does  that  he  was  not  a  clergyman  at  all,  but 
only  a  layman."  The  inference  that  Timothy  was  no 
Apostle  is  deduced  from  the  distinction  so  expressly 
made  between  him  and  Paul  as  an  Apostle.  There  is 
no  such  distinction  made  between  him  and  Paul  as  a 
clergyman  or  minister,  and  therefore  there  is  no  ground 
for  the  inference  that  Timothy  was  "only  a  layman." 
An  argument  founded  on  the  express  mention  of  a 
certain  office,  however  little  it  may  prove  as  to  that 
office,  cannot  prove  as  much,  because  it  can  prove 


OFFICIAL  RANK  OF  TIMOTHY.  109 

notliing,  as  to  an  office  which  is  not  mentioned  at  all. 
If  we  read,  in  a  Presbyterian  publication,  of  "A.  B. 
the  pastor  and  C.  D.  a  member  of  the  church,"  although 
we  know  that,  according  to  our  constitution,  pastors  are 
always  elders,  and  elders  are  always  members  of  the 
church,  we  should  certainly  infer,  with  absolute  cer- 
tainty, that  C.  D.  was  not  a  collegiate  pastor  with 
A.  B.,  nor  would  our  confidence  in  this  conclusion  be 
at  all  impaired  by  being  told,  that  the  writer's  calling 
C.  D.  a  church-member  no  more  proved  that  he  was 
not  a  pastor  than  it  proved  that  he  was  not  an  elder. 
If  again  we  read,  in  an  Episcopal  journal,  of  *'  Bishop 
Potter  and  Dr.  Dorr,"  we  should  certainly  regard  the 
very  form  of  the  expression  as  sufficient  to  evince  that 
Dr.  Dorr  was  not  Assistant  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania, 
even  in  spite  of  the  assurance  that  the  terms  used  no 
more  prove  that  Dr.  D.  is  not  a  bishop,  than  they  prove 
that  he  is  not  a  presbyter,  because  bishops,  presbyters, 
deacons,  and  even  laymen,  may  be  doctors.  In  both 
these  cases,  as  in  that  which  they  are  used  to  illustrate, 
every  reader  feels  that,  if  the  higher  title  belonged 
equally  to  both  the  persons  mentioned,  its  being  ap- 
plied to  one,  and  not  the  other,  would  be  an  anomaly 
requiring  explanation,  in  default  of  which  the  inference 
seems  unavoidable,  that  the  application  was  designed 
to  be  exclusive ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  when  Paul, 
in  two  epistles,  calls  himself  an  apostle  and  Timothy 
a  brother,  he  excludes  the  latter  from  the  rank  of  an 
apostle. 

In  the  epistle  to  the  Philippians  (2  :  19-23)  we  find 
Paul  proposing  to  send  Timothy  to  them,  and  describ- 
ing him  as  one  like-minded,  who  would  naturally 
care  for  their  state,  who  had  served   with   Paul   in. 


110  ESSAY  IV, 

the  gospel,  as  a  son  with,  a  father.  These  expressions 
are  not  only  reconcilable  with  the  supposition,  that 
Timothy,  although  a  presbyter,  was  Paul's  inferior  and 
under  his  direction,  but  agree  far  better  with  that  sup- 
position than  with  the  supposition  that  he  was  Paul's 
equal,  a  "supreme"  Apostle.  In  the  epistles  to  the 
Thessalonians,  Silas  (or  Silvanus)  and  Timothy  are 
joined  with  Paul  in  the  inscriptions.  It  has  never 
been  contended  that  this  of  itself  implies  equality  of 
rank ;  and  that  it  does  not,  is  sufficiently  apparent 
from  1  Thess.  3  :  2,  where  Paul  again  appears  directing 
Timothy's  movements,  and  where  Timothy  is  described 
as  a  brother,  a  minister  of  God,  a  fellow-labourer  in 
the  gospel  of  Christ,  but  not  as  an  Apostle.  And  yet 
here,  if  anywhere,  the  introduction  of  that  title  would 
have  been  not  only  natural,  but  almost  unavoidable, 
had  Timothy  been  really  entitled  to  it. 

These  are  all  the  cases  in  which  Timothy  is  men- 
tioned, except  in  the  epistles  addressed  to  himself,  and 
from  a  view  of  the  whole  it  would  appear,  that  in  the 
history  he  is  mentioned  only  as  a  personal  attendant 
upon  Paul ;  that  in  the  epistles,  he  appears  as  a  minister 
of  God,  a  preacher  of  Christ,  a  fellow-labourer  of  Paul 
in  the  gospel,  all  which  expressions  are  applicable  to 
him  as  a  presbyter,  and  cannot  therefore  furnish  any 
proof  that  he  was  an  Apostle ;  that  he  is  never  ex- 
pressly called  an  Apostle,  even  Avhen  he  is  particu- 
larly mentioned  and  described,  and  when  the  omission 
of  the  title  could  not  fail,  on  any  ordinary  principle  of 
interpretation,  to  distinguish  him  from  Paul  who  is 
described  as  an  Apostle;  that  while  he  is  nowhere 
represented  as  performing  apostolic  acts,  he  is  repeat- 
edly described  as  being  subject  to  Paul's  orders  and 


OFFICIAL  RANK  OF  TIMOTHY.  Ill 

directions,  a  fact  wliicli  harmonizes  perfectly  witli  the 
supposition  of  his  official  inferiority,  and  can  only  be 
reconciled  with  any  other  by  means  of  forced  construc- 
tions and  gratuitous  assumptions.  This  view  of  Timo- 
thy's official  character,  as  it  appears  in  the  other  epis- 
tles and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  will  prepare  us  for 
the  consideration  of  the  two  epistles  to  himself,  and 
for  the  question,  whether  these  epistles  contain  proof 
of  his  apostleship  so  clear  as  to  invalidate  the  strong 
presumption,  that  he  was  oihcially  inferior  to  Paul. 

In  the  title  or  inscription  of  the  first  epistle,  Paul 
addresses  Timothy  as  his  "  own  son  in  the  faith,"  and 
in  that  of  the  second  as  his  "  dearly  beloved  son." 
These  epithets  prove  nothing,  as  to  official  rank  or 
power,  and  are  only  remarkable  as  additional  instances 
of  the  consistent  uniformity  with  which  the  name 
Apostle  is  withheld  from  Timothy,  whether  in  speak- 
ing to  or  of  him. 

From  1  Tim,  1 :  3,  it  appears  that,  when  Paul  went 
into  Macedonia,  he  left  Timothy  in  Ephesus,  that  he 
might  "charge  some  to  teach  no  other  doctrines, 
neither  give  heed  to  fables,"  etc.  This  charge  he  is 
again  said,  in  v.  18,  to  have  committed  to  Timothj^, 
according  to  the  prophecies  which  went  before  upon 
him.  The  phrase  "  this  charge"  must  refer  either  to 
the  "ministry"  which  Paul  himself  had  received,  ac- 
cording to  V.  12,  or  to  the  charge  mentioned  in  v.  3. 
Kit  means  the  former,  the  word  SiuKovla^  being  appli- 
cable to  all  ranks,  proves  nothing  as  to  Timothy's 
apostleship.  But  that  it  means  the  latter  appears  more 
probable,  from  the  parenthetical  character  of  the 
whole  intervening  passage,  vs.  6-17,  as  well  as  from 
the  verbal  correspondence  between  irapayje'CKr)'^  (v.  3) 
and  irapayyekiav  (vs.  5,  18). 


112  ESSAY  IV. 

The  second  chapter  contains  directions  with  respect 
to  public  prayer,  its  subjects  (vs.  1-7),  the  persons 
permitted  to  perform  it  (v.  8),  and  the  duty  of  women 
with  respect  to  public  worship  (vs.  9-15).  No  personal 
agency  is  expressly  ascribed  to  Timothy,  but  it  is 
evidently  implied  that  he  was  to  enforce  these  regu- 
lations, and  of  course  that  he  was  clothed  with  power 
so  to  do. 

The  third  chapter  contains  the  qualifications  of 
bishops  and  deacons.  Here  again  no  personal  agency 
is  ascribed  to  Timothy.  It  is  said,  indeed,  in  v.  14, 
"  these  things  write  I  unto  thee,  hoping  to  come  unto 
thee  shortly ;  but  if  I  tarry  long,  that  thou  mayest 
know  how  to  behave  thyself  in  the  house  of  God, 
which  is  the  church,"  etc.  This  might  possibly  refer 
to  Timothy's  own  conduct  in  one  of  the  two  ofiices 
which  had  just  been  described,  or  in  both,  for  the 
greater  includes  the  less.  But  when  taken  in  connec- 
tion with  the  "charge"  mentioned  in  ch.  1:  3,  18,  it 
seems  to  imply  that  these  directions  are  given  to  him, 
because  he  would  be  called  upon  to  ordain  others, 
and  that  he  might  know  what  qualifications  to  require. 

In  the  fourth  chapter,  after  enumerating  certain 
heretical  and  fanatical  errors  which  were  to  be  looked 
for,  Paul  says  to  Timothy  (v.  6),  "  if  thou  put  the 
brethren  in  remembrance  of  these  things,  thou  shalt  be 
a  good  minister  of  Jesus  Christ,"  etc.  The  "brethren," 
whom  Timothy  was  thus  to  "put  in  remembrance,"  may 
have  been  either  brethren  in  the  ministry,  or  laymen, 
or  the  whole  Christian  brotherhood,  including  both. 
In  relation  to  these  and  some  other  matters,  the  Apos- 
tle adds,  "these  things  command  and  teach"  (v.  11). 
He  then  exhorts  him  to  avoid  contempt,  by  setting 


OFFICIAL  RANK  OF  TIMOTHY,  113 

an  example  of  consistent  conduct,  purity,  etc.,  adding 
"  till  I  come,  give  attendance  to  reading,  to  exhorta- 
tion, to  doctrine"  (v.  13).  This  implies  that  when 
Paul  did  come,  he  would  give  him  more  particular 
directions  for  his  subsequent  conduct,  a  suggestion 
which  by  no  means  favours,  though  it  may  not  direct- 
l}''  impugn,  the  hypothesis  of  Timothy's  apostleship. 
The  important  passage,  1  Tim.  4:  14,  having  been 
examined  at  length  in  a  former  essay,  is  here  omitted. 

In  ch.  4 :  15,  Paul  exhorts  Timothy  to  meditate  on 
these  instructions,  and  to  give  himself  wholly  to  his 
work,  that  his  improvement  {irpoKOTrr})  might  appear 
to  all.  This,  to  say  the  least,  is  more  in  accordance 
with  the  supposition,  that  the  person  thus-  addressed 
was  a  young  preacher,  of  the  common  rank,  who  had 
a  character  to  form  and  influence  to  gain,  than  that  he 
was  a  "  supreme  apostle,"  the  official  equal  of  the  per- 
son writing.  In  the  next  verse  (ch.  4:  16)  Paul  ex- 
horts him  to  take  heed  to  himself  (i.  e.  his  personal 
deportment  and  hopes),  and  to  his  doctrine  (what  he 
preached),  and  to  continue  in  them,  because  in  so  doing 
he  would  both  save  himself  and  those  who  heard  him. 
Timothy  here  appears  in  the  character  of  a  preacher, 
without  any  allusion  to  higher  powers  than  might  have 
belonged  to  an  ordinary  presbyter. 

In  ch.  5 :  1,  he  is  told  not  to  rebuke  an  elder,  but 
entreat  him  as  a  father.  Even  if  irpea-^vrepo';  had  here 
its  technical  meaning,  as  a  name  of  office,  the  passage 
would  prove  nothing  as  to  Timothy's  official  rank,  be- 
cause upon  the  supposition  that  he  was  a  presbyter, 
nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  the  exhortation 
not  to  rebuke  a  brother  presbyter,  but  to  entreat  him. 
But  that  irpea^vrepo^  is  here  used  in  its  primary  and 


114  ESSAY   IV. 

proper  sense,  that  of  an  old  man,  is  apparent  from  the 
whole  drift  of  the  passage,  and  especially  from  the  an- 
tithetical relation  which  Trpea^urepw  sustains  to  vecore- 
pov<;  in  the  same  verse  and  7rp€a/3vT€pa<i  in  the  next. 
In  V.  7,  he  is  commanded  to  give  these  things  in 
charge  {irdpa'yyeWe)^  which  implies  that  he  was  vested 
with  authority  to  reprove  and  exhort  both  old  and 
young,  and  to  regulate  the  conduct  of  the  church 
towards  widows  as  the  object  of  their  charity.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  v.  11  and  the  intervening  verses, 
and  indeed  of  the  whole  passage  ending  with  v.  15. 

1  Tim.  5:17  has  been  a  subject  of  much  contro- 
versy, as  to  the  questions  whether  irpea^vTepoi  means 
old  men  in  the  popular,  or  elders  in  the  official  sense  ; 
and  whether  a  distinction  is  here  recognized  between 
the  two  classes  of  teaching  and  ruling  elders.  The 
discussion  of  these  questions  would  be  foreign  from  my 
present  purpose.  Whether  ruling  elders,  as  distinct 
from  preachers  of  the  gospel,  are  here  spoken  of  or 
not,  it  is  admitted  upon  all  hands  that  the  text  relates 
to  presbyters  or  elders  in  the  highest  sense,  and  it  will 
therefore  be  sufficient  for  the  present  purpose  to  as- 
sume that  they  alone  are  mentioned.  It  appears,  then, 
that  Timothy  is  here  directed,  at  least  by  implication, 
to  treat  certain  presbyters  with  particular  respect! 
This  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  he  was  their  su- 
perior ;  for  the  very  same  exhortation  might  have  been 
addressed  to  the  people,  who  seem  indeed  to  be  in- 
cluded in  the  exhortation,  as  the  indefinite  passive 
form  {a^Lova^wcrav)  is  used,  instead  of  a  direct  address 
to  Timothy.  If  Paul,  in  writing  to  the  whole  church, 
might  have  said,  "  Let  the  presbyters  who  rule  well 
be  counted  worthy  of  double  honour,"  without  imply- 


OFFICIAL  RANK  OF  TIMOTHY.  115 

ing  that  the  presbyters  were  subject  to  the  body  of  the 
brethren,  his  use  of  the  same  form  of  speech  to  Timothy 
cannot  possibly  prove  that  they  were  subject  to  him. 
But  one  thing  it  does  prove,  of  a  very  different  nature, 
to  wit,  that  Presbyters  were  rulers  in  the  church,  and 
not  mere  agents  of  "  apostle-bishops."  It  may  be  said, 
that  TrpoearwTe'i  merely  means  presiding  or  holding  the 
first  place.  This  is  a  question  to  be  settled  by  usage. 
In  Rom.  12  :  8,  6  Trpo'CaTdfji.evo';  cannot  denote 
mere  rank  or  conspicuous  position,  for  two  reasons; 
because  a  man  could  not  be  exhorted  to  hold  such  a 
position  "  with  diligence ;"  and  because  all  the  other 
terms  connected  with  it  denote  specific  actions.  The 
same  thing  is  evident  from  the  collocation  of  irpolara- 
fievov<i^  in  1  Thess.  5 :  12,  between  KoinoiVTa'i  and  vov^e- 
TovPTa<i^  both  denoting  specific  functions  of  the  minis- 
try. In  1  Tim.  3 :  4,  Paul  requires  a  bishop  to  be  one 
that  ruleth  well  («aX&»?  tt polar djjievov)  his  own  house, 
which  can  hardly  mean  one  who  holds  the  first  place 
in  it,  without  any  original  jurisdiction  over  it.  The 
same  remark  applies  to  v.  12,  where  the  deacons  are 
described  as  ruling  {Trpoia-rdfievoi)  their  children  and 
their  households  well.  Let  the  same  sense  which 
irpota-rrjfit,  evidently  has  in  these  four  cases,  be  applied 
to  that  before  us,  and  it  becomes  plain  that  presbyters 
are  spoken  of  as  ruling  just  as  really  as  bishops  and 
deacons  are  said  to  rule  their  own  families.  That  the 
rule  referred  to  is  that  of  the  church,  appears  from 
what  follows  in  the  same  verse  as  to  labouring  in  word 
and  doctrine.  Here  then  is  an  explicit  mention  of 
presbyters  as  rulers  in  the  church,  without  any  refer- 
ence to  a  superior  human  power.  Where  shall  we 
find  an  equally  distinct  ascription  of  the  ruling  power 


116  ESSAY   IV. 

to  Apostles,  not  of  the  original  thirteen?  If  here,  as 
in  the  case  of  Trpeo-^vrepwv,  it  should  be  said,  that 
Trpea/Surepot  means  Apostles,  then,  besides  that  the 
assumption  is  entirely  gratuitous,  Timothy,  according 
to  the  adverse  doctrine,  was  a  hj^per-apostolical  church- 
officer,  not  only  equal  but  superior  to  Paul,  who  was 
a  mere  Apostle. 

"Against  an  elder  receive  not  an. accusation  but 
before  two  or  three  witnesses,"  i.  e.  upon  their  testi- 
mony (1  Tim.  5 :  19).  If  Trpea-^vrepos  here  means  a 
ruling  elder,  as  distinguished  from  a  preacher,  this  is 
nothing  more  than  a  direction  to  a  pastor  Avith  respect 
to  charges  brought  against  his  assessors.  But  granting 
that  the  word  is  here  to  be  taken  in  its  highest  sense, 
what  does  this  verse  prove,  as  to  Timothy's  relative 
position,  with  respect  to  these  presbyters  ?  Simpl}'- 
this,  that  he  was  empowered  to  "  receive  an  accusa- 
tion" against  them.  There  is  nothing  said  of  punish- 
ing, condemning,  nor  even  of  trying  them.  The  only 
act  mentioned  is  that  of  receiving  an  accusation 
against  them.  For  any  thing  that  appears,  the  refer- 
ence might  be  merely  to  accusations  of  a  private  kind, 
which  Timothy  is  cautioned  not  to  "  receive"  without 
satisfactory  proof.  But  even  granting  that  the  refer- 
ence is  clearly  to  judicial  process,  it  will  only  prove 
that  Timothy  had  power  to  judge  presbyters.  From 
this  some  argue  that,  in  judging  presbyters,  he 
held  an  office  superior  to  theirs.  Let  us  grant, 
for  a  moment,  that  he  did ;  this  superior  office  may 
have  been  a  temporary  one.  The  most  that  can  with 
reason  be  inferred  is  that  a  presbyter  was  sometimes 
clothed  with  extraordinary  powers  to  try  other  pres- 
byters.    Nor  is  there  any  thing  unnatural  or  contrary 


OFFICIAL  RANK  OF  TIMOTHY.  117 

to  analogy  in  this  hypothesis.  The  favourite  privilege 
of  modern  freemen  is  to  be  tried  by  their  peers.  If  an 
Apostle,  or  "Apostle-bishop,"  were  accused,  by  whom 
would  he  be  tried  ?  By  one  or  more  of  the  same 
order.  Would  it  follow  from  this  that  the  judges  were 
superior  to  the  accused  in  permanent  official  rank? 
There  is  no  distinction  between  the  cases  arising  from 
the  fact  that  Timothy  alone  is  mentioned.  Admitting 
that  the  fact  is  so,  although  it  may  be  customary,  and 
on  the  whole  desirable,  to  appoint  a  plurality  of 
judges  in  such  cases,  there  is  nothing  absurd  in  the 
appointment  of  a  single  one.  Some  jurists  have  con- 
tended for  such  a  constitution  of  all  courts  as  the 
most  safe  and  reasonable.  It  is  not  asserted  that 
Timothy  was  clothed  with  this  extraordinary  power. 
It  is  only  asserted  that  this  is  quite  as  fair  an  in- 
ference from  the  proposed  interpretation  of  the  verse 
before  us,  as  the  inference  that  Timothy  must  have 
had  a  permanent  office  above  that  of  presbyter,  be- 
cause he  acted  as  tlie  sole  judge  of  presbyters. 

But  what  proof  is  there  that  he  was  to  be  the  sole 
judge?  It  has  hitherto  been  granted,  in  order  to 
evince  that,  even  in  that  case,  nothing  could  be  proved 
as  to  his  holding  a  superior  rank.  But  the  concession 
was  entirely  gratuitous.  It  rests  on  nothing  but  the 
fact  that  Paul's  instructions  are  addressed  to  Timothy 
in  the  second  person  singular,  "Eeceive  not  thou  an 
accusation."  Let  us  see  what  would  follow  from  the 
rigid  application  of  this  rule.  If  the  singular  form  of 
the  command  in  question  proves  that  Timothy  alone 
was  to  receive  accusations  against  Presbyters,  then  the 
similar  form,  used  in  other  parts  of  the  epistle,  proves 
that  he  alone  was  to  war  a  good  warfare,  holding 


118  ESSAY   IV. 

faith  and  a  good  conscience  (ch.  1 :  18,  19) ;  that  he 
alone  was  to  refuse  profane  and  old  wives'  fables,  and 
exercise  himself  rather  unto  godliness  (ch,  4:7);  that 
he  alone  was  to  command  and  teach  these  things 
(ch.  4: 11);  that  he  alone  was  to  be  an  example  of  the 
believers  in  word,  in  conversation,  in  charity  (ch.  4 : 
12) ;  that  he  alone  was  to  give  attendance  to  reading, 
to  exhortation,  to  doctrine  (ib.  v.  13) ;  that  he  alone 
was  to  meditate  upon  these  things  and  give  himself 
wholly  to  them  (ib.  v.  15) ;  that  he  alone  was  to  take 
heed  unto  himself  and  to  his  doctrine,  and  to  continue 
in  them  (v.  16) ;  that  he  alone  had  hearers,  whose  sal- 
vation or  perdition  was  at  stake  (ib,).  Is  it  valid  rea- 
soning to  infer  from  these  commands  that  Timothy 
was  the  only  preacher  in  Ephesus  ?  If  so,  where  were 
his  presbyters  ?  If  not,  why  should  the  personal 
address,  in  ch.  5 :  19,  prove  any  thing  more,  as  to  the 
limitation  of  the  powers  and  duties  there  referred  to, 
than  it  does  in  all  the  other  cases  above  cited  ?  If  it 
be  asked,  who  else  could  be  included  in  the  exhorta- 
tion, the  answer  is,  they  who  held  the  same  office,  or 
the  Presbyters  mentioned  in  the  context.  It  is  not 
necessary  for  my  present  purpose  to  allege  that  this 
must  be  the  meaning.  It  is  sufficient  to  maintain  that 
it  may  be,  and  that  consequently  there  can  be  no  just 
ground  for  assuming  that  the  official  acts  ascribed  to 
Timothy  were  exclusive  acts. 

If  it  be  asked,  w;hy  he  is  individually  addressed, 
and  not  as  one  of  a  number,  it  is  a  sufficient  answer, 
that  Paul  was  writing  to  him  alone,  and  that  the  acts 
to  be  performed  were  individual  acts,  whether  per- 
formed in  conjunction  with  others  or  not.  If  an 
English  Bishop  should  address  a  letter  to  an  Ameri- 


OFFICIAL  RANK  OF  TIMOTHY.  119 

can  one,  advising  liim  as  to  the  performance  of  his 
duties,  might  he  not  naturally  say  to  him,  "  I  hope 
my  brother  will  be  careful,  both  as  to  the  persons 
whom  he  admits  to  the  episcopal  office,  and  as  to  the 
reception  of  charges  against  them,  when  they  are  ad- 
mitted?" Would  it  be  fair  to  infer  from  this  that  the 
person  addressed  had  the  sole  right  of  consecrating 
bishops  and  of  trying  them?  Would  not  the  infer- 
ence be  at  least  as  fair,  that  what  was  said  to  him  in- 
dividually had  respect  to  functions  which  could  only 
be  performed  in  conjunction  with  others?  And  if  so, 
may  we  not  infer  the  same  thing  in  the  case  of 
Timothy  ?  The  bare  possibility  of  such  an  inference 
makes  it  at  least  unnecessary  to  infer,  that  because  Tim- 
othy is  individually  addressed,  he  alone  was  com- 
petent to  do  the  acts  commanded.  No  doubt  mul- 
tudes  of  letters  have  been  written  to  young  Presby- 
terian ministers,  in  which  the  same  form  of  address 
w*as  used  in  reference  to  acts  which,  according  to 
our  constitution,  no  presbyter  can  ordinarily  per- 
form alone.  If  then  Timothy  is  not  here  mentioned 
as  the  sole  judge  of  accused  presbyters,  nothing  can  be 
inferred  as  to  his  superiority.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
he  is  so  mentioned,  it  is  more  natural  to  infer  that  he 
was  clothed  with  an  extraordinary  judicial  power,  than 
that  he  held  an  office  which  he  is  nowhere  said  to  have 
held,  by  the  name  of  which  he  is  nowhere  called,  and 
the  very  existence  of  which,  as  a  part  of  the  permanent 
church-system,  is  a  matter  of  dispute. 

The  fallacy  of  the  adverse  reasoning  may  be  made 
apparent  by  an  illustration.  Suppose  a  letter  should 
be  found  hereafter,  addressed  to  an  officer  in  our  navy, 
and  advising  him  as  to  his  conduct  respecting  cer- 


120  ESSAY   IV, 

tain  accusations  brought  against  a  captain  in  the 
same  service,  tlie  address  throughout  being  singular  in 
its  form,  and  without  any  intimation  of  its  being  appli- 
cable to  any  other  person.  Suppose  this  passage  to 
occur  in  the  letter,  "  I  would  advise  you  never  to  re- 
ceive a  charge  against  a  captain  without  ample  proof." 
A  writer  on  naval  history  infers  from  these  expres- 
sicrns,  that  they  relate  to  judicial  process;  that  the 
person  addressed  had  the  sole  right  of  trying  the  ac- 
cused ;  and  that  he  must  therefore  have  been  superior 
in  rank  to  a  post-captain.  Subsequent  inquiry  shows, 
perhaps,  that  the  language  of  the  letter  related  merely 
to  private  accusation ;  or  if  not,  that  the  person  ad- 
dressed was  one  of  a  Court  Martial,  and  in  rank  pre- 
cisely equal  to  the  accused  party.  Are  not  the  sup- 
posed words  perfectly  consistent  with  this  state  of  the 
case  ?  If  so,  what  follows  as  to  the  nature  of  the  rea- 
soning, which  led  to  the  false  conclusion  ?  That  it 
proves  nothing,  because  it  proves  too  much  If,  no\v, 
this  reasoning  had  been  used  to  prove  that  the  rank 
of  Admiral  existed  in  the  United.  States  Navy  in 
1850,  would  it  not  very  much  resemble  that  which 
is  used  to  prove  that  Apostles  (not  of  the  original 
thirteen)  existed  in  the  primitive  church  ?  That 
argument,  so  far  as  it  is  founded  on  this  passage, 
takes  for  granted,  that  the  words  relate  to  judicial 
process  against  presbyters ;  that  Timothy  is  repre- 
sented as  the  sole  judge;  and  that  he  could  not  be  so 
unless  superior  to  presbyters  in  permanent  official 
rank.  Waving  the  first  point,  or  admitting  its  cor- 
rectness, it  may  be  alleged,  in  opposition  to  the 
second,  that  he  need  not  be  supposed  to  have  been  the 
sole  judge  ;  and  to  the  third,  that  his  judging  presby- 


OFFICIAL   RANK   OF  TIMOTHY.  121 

ters,  whether  alone  or  not,  is  no  proof  that  he  was 
more  than  a  presbyter  himself.  Indeed,  supposing 
presbyters,  as  we  do,  to  have  been  the  highest  perma- 
nent officers  in  the  church,  it  was  only  by  presbyters 
that  they  could  be  tried,  just  as  in  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  bishops  must  be  tried  by  bishops, 
and  in  the  army  generals  by  generals.  Whether 
Timothy  tried  presbyters  by  virtue  of  extraordinary 
powers,  or  in  the  discharge  of  his  ordinary  duties  as 
a  member  of  a  presbytery,  matters  not.  Either  of 
these  suppositions  sufficiently  accounts  for  the  expres- 
sions in  the  text,  and  thereby  precludes  the  necessity 
of  assuming  a  permanent  superiority  of  rank.  He  is 
elsewhere  described  as  a  presbyter ;  he  is  nowhere  de- 
scribed as  an  apostle ;  what  he  was  here  described 
as  doing  he  was  competent  to  do  as  a  presbyter ;  it 
is  therefore  unreasonable  to  infer  that  he  was  an 
apostle. 

The  same  remarks  apply  to  ch.  5  :  22.  "  Lay  hands 
suddenly  on  no  man,  neither  be  partaker  of  other 
men's  sins."  It  may  even  be  questioned,  whether  this 
relates  at  all  to  ordination.  Why  may  it  not  refer  to 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  If  such  a  reference  is  even 
supposable  in  ch.  4 :  14,  it  is  highly  probable  in  this 
place,  where  nothing  is  mentioned  but  the  bare  impo- 
sition of  hands.  But  granting  that  it  does  refer  to  or- 
dination, it  is  not  said  to  what  office  ;  and  why  may  it 
not  have  been  to  that  of  deacon  ?  But  even  granting 
that  it  refers  to  the  ordination  of  presbyters,  it  does 
not  follow,  for  the  reasons  above  given,  that  Timothy 
alone  was  to  lay  on  hands.  And  if  he  did  it  alone,  he 
may  have  done  so  merely  as  a  presbyter,  or  by  virtue 
of  an  extraordinary  but  temporary  power.  A  solitary 
6 


122  ESSAY  IV. 

Presbyterian  minister,  under  certain  circumstances, 
miglit  ordain  others,  in  perfect  consistency  witli  Pres- 
byterian principles.  Whether  Timothy  was  clothed 
with  extraordinary  powers,  for  a  particular  occasion, 
matters  not.  If  he  was  the  only  Presbyter  in  Ephesus, 
the  necessity  of  the  case  would  authorize  him  to  or- 
dain. The  requisition  of  a  plurality  is  not  to  be  found 
in  Scripture.  The  principle  involved  in  ordination  is 
that  it  can  only  be  performed  by  one  who  has  himself 
been  ordained.  And  this  requisition  is  as  really  com- 
plied with  by  the  act  of  one  ordainer  as  by  that  of 
twenty.  For  obvious  reasons  of  expediency,  the  exer- 
cise of  the  power  may  be  limited,  in  ordinary  cases,  to 
a  plurality  of  persons ;  but  the  restriction  rests  upon 
no  principle.  If  one  bishop  in  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church  can  admit  others  to  an  order  inferior  to  his 
own,  there  is  no  reason,  except  usage  and  arbitrary 
regulation,  why  he  should  not,  if  necessary,  admit  one 
to  the  same  office  which  he  holds  himself  Even  sup- 
posing, then,  that  Timothy  ordained  alone,  it  does  not 
follow  that  he  was  .superior  in  rank  to  Presbyters. 
The  Apostle's  exhortation  would  be  perfectly  appro- 
priate, if  addressed  to  one  of  a  body  of  Presbyters. 
And  we  know  from  Acts  20 :  17,  that  there  were  other 
Presbyters  in  or  about  Ephesus.  The  assumption, 
then,  that  Timothy  held  an  office  superior  to  that  of 
Presbyters,  is  wholly  unsupported  by  the  text  be- 
fore us. 

In  1  Tim.  6 :  2,  Timothy  is  commanded  to  teach 
and  exhort  servants  as  to  their  relative  duties.  In  the 
next  verse,  Paul  denounces  any  who  should  teach 
otherwise,  implying  that  there  were  others  authorized 
to  teach.     This  passage,  then,  relates  to  powers  which 


OFFICIAL   BANK   OF  TIMOTHY.  123 

Timothy  possessed  in  common  witli  others.  From 
such  false  teachers  he  is  commanded  to  withdraw  him- 
self. This  could  hardly  be  addressed  to  an  ecclesiasti- 
cal superior,  who  possessed  the  sole  right  of  exercising 
discipline.  It  applies  much  better  to  one  among  a 
number  of  authorized  teachers,  whose  defence  against 
them  was  to  shun  their  company.  In  v.  11,  the  Apos- 
tle exhorts  Timothy  to  avoid  the  sin  of  covetousness, 
and  to  cultivate  the  Christian  graces,  to  fight  the  good 
fight  of  faith,  and  to  lay  hold  of  eternal  life.  He 
speaks  of  him',  at  the  same  time,  as  having  "  professed 
a  good  profession."  This  commandment  he  charges 
him  to  keep  "without  spot,  unrebukable,  until  the 
appearing  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (vs.  13, 14).  This 
must  refer  to  the  immediately  preceding  exhortation, 
as  to  the  seeking  of  salvation,  and  the  cultivation  of 
the  Christian  graces.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  used 
as  an  argument  to  prove  that  Timothy  had  not  a  tem- 
porary commission  of  an  extraordinary  kind.  In  vs. 
17-19  Paul  tells  him  what  exhortations  he  should  give 
to  rich  men.  In  v.  20  he  charges  him  to  be  faithful  to 
his  trust,  and  on  his  guard  against  a  spurious  philoso- 
phy. All  these  advices  are  perfectly  appropriate,  if 
addressed  to  a  mere  Presbyter. 

The  second  epistle  is  addressed  by  "Paul  an  Ajdos- 
tle  of  Jesus  Christ,"  to  Timothy,  not  as  a  brother- 
apostle,  but  as  a  "dearly  beloved  son."  Such  an 
address  would  certainly  not  have  been  unnatural,  even 
to  an  official  equal,  much  inferior  in  age.  But  it  can- 
not be  denied  that  the  continual  omission  of  the  apos- 
tolical title,  in  the  very  places  where  we  might  expect 
it,  is  somewhat  unfavourable  to  the  truth  of  the  posi- 
tion, that  Timothy  was  a  "  supreme  Apostle."     In  the 


124  ESSAY   IV. 

sixtli  verse,  Paul  says,  "  Wherefore  I  put  thee  in  re- 
membrance, that  thou  sth-  up  the  gift  of  God  which  is 
in  thee  by  the  putting  on  of  my  hands."  This  relates 
either  to  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  or  to  ordination. 
If  the  former,  it  proves  nothing  as  to  Timothy's  ofiScial 
rank,  since  persons  not  described  as  ministers  at  all 
sometimes  conferred  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  appears  from 
the  case  of  Ananias,  Acts  9  :  17.  If  it  relates  to  ordina- 
tion, it  must  have  been  either  to  the  deaconship,  the 
eldership,  or  the  apostleship.  The  first  has  never  been 
alleged.  If  it  was  to  the  eldership,  the  same  transaction 
is  referred  to  as  in  1  Tim.  4 :  14,  from  which,  as  we 
have  seen,  it  may  be  proved  that  presbyters  ordained. 
Or  even  granting  that  the  ordination  was  performed  by 
an  Apostle,  if  it  was  to  the  office  of  a  presbyter,  Paul's 
twice  exhorting  him  to  stir  up  the  gift  conferred  upon 
him  in  his  ordination  to  the  eldership,  strongly  implies 
that  he  was  nothing  more,  and  indeed  that  this  was 
the  highest  permanent  office  in  the  church.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  ordination  spoken  of  is  to  the.  office  of 
Apostle,  then  it  follows  that  Timothy  received  this  or- 
dination in  the  interval  between  the  two  epistles,  and, 
consequently,  that  the  powers  ascribed  to  him  in  the 
first  epistle  (including  those  of  discipline  and  ordina- 
tion) belonged  to  him  as  a  presbyter.  The  same  re- 
marks apply  to  V.  14,  "that  good  thing  which  was 
committed  unto  thee,  keep  by  the  Holy  Ghost  which 
dwelleth  in  us."  In  v.  13,  Timothy  is  exhorted  to 
hold  fast  "  the  form  of  sound  words"  which  he  had 
heard  from  Paul,  who  still  addresses  him  as  his  pupil 
and  inferior,-  without  the  least  allusion  to  his  being  a 
colleague  and  "  supreme  Apostle." 

Ch.  2:1.     "  Thou  therefore,  my  son,  be  strong  in 


OFFICIAL   RANK   OF  TIMOTHY.  125 

the  grace  tliat  is  in  Christ  Jesus;  and  the  things  that 
thou  hast  heard  of  me  among  many  witnesses,  the  same 
commit  thou  to  faithful  men  who  shall  be  able  to  teach 
others  also."  Timothy  is  here  directed  to  ordain  teach- 
ers. From  this  some  infer  that  he  held  an  ofS.ce  supe- 
rior to  that  of  Presbyter.  But  this  assumes,  first,  that 
he  was  to  ordain  alone,  and  then,  that  a  person  can- 
not be  admitted  to  a  given  rank,  except  by  one  who 
holds  a  higher  rank.  The  first,  as  we  have  seen,  is  a 
gratuitous  assumption.  The  second  would  render  it 
impossible  to  perpetuate  the  highest  order.  If  an 
Apostle  could  ordain  Apostles,  it  is  not  to  be  assumed 
as  an  impossibility  that  a  Presbyter  should  ordain 
Presbyters.  How  can  it  be  argued  that,  because  Timo- 
thy ordained  Presbyters,  he  must  have  been  more  than 
a  Presbyter  himself,  any  more  than  that  because  Paul 
(according  to  the  adverse  theory)  ordained  Apostles, 
he  must  have  been  something  more  than  an  Apostle  ? 
If  the  latter  conclusion  does  not  follow  of  course, 
neither  does  the  former.  If  an  Apostle  could  ordain 
Apostles,  the  natural  presumption  (in  the  absence  of 
all  proof  to  the  contrary)  is  that  Presbyters  could  or- 
dain Presbyters.  This  would  be  a  natural  presump- 
tion, even  if  the  perpetuity  of  the  apostolic  office  could 
be  proved.  How  much  more  when  the  antecedent 
probabilities  are  all  against  it,  and  when  this  very  text 
is  relied  upon,  as  one  of  the  few  passages  which  prove 
it.  The  question  is  whether  peculiar  apostolic  powers 
are  ascribed  to  Timothy.  The  proof  of  the  affirma- 
tive is,  that  he  ordained  Presbyters.  The  very  same 
fact  we  adduce  as  proof  that  Presbyters  ordained.  If 
we  have  no  right  to  assume  that  he  acted  as  a  Presby- 
ter, still  less  right  have  our  opponents  to  assume  that 


126  ESSAY  IV. 

none  except  Apostles  ordained.  We  know  that  Timo- 
thy was  a  Presbyter,  but  we  do  not  know  that  he  was 
an  Apostle.  It  is,  therefore,  more  allowable  to  assume 
that  Timothy  ordained  as  a  Presbyter,  which  we  know 
him  to  have  been,  than  that  he  ordained  as  an  Apos- 
tle, which  we  do  not  know  him  to  have  been. 

In  this  same  chapter,  Paul  exhorts  Timothy  to 
endure  hardness  (v.  3),  to  consider  what  he  heard  or 
read  (v.  7),  to  put  the  people  in  remembrance  of  these 
things,  charging  theni  before  the  Lord  that  they  strive 
not  about  words  to  no  profit  (v.  14).  "  Study  to  show 
thyself  approved  unto  God,  a  workman  that  needeth 
not  to  be  ashamed,  rightly  dividing  the  word  of  truth, 
but  shun  profane  and  vain  babblings,  for  they  will  in- 
crease unto  more  ungodliness"  (vs.  15, 16).  How  much 
more  natural  and  appropriate  are  these  advices,  if  ad- 
dressed to  a  mere  Presbyter,  than  if  addressed  to  a 
"  Supreme  Apostle ;"  and  how  strange  is  it  that  among 
these  exhortations,  having  reference  to  the  duties  of  a 
Presbyter,  not  one  should  have  crept  in,  relating  to 
any  peculiar  apostolic  function.  How  strange  that 
Paul  should  have  nothing  to  say  to  his  brother-apostle 
about  apostolic  powers  and  duties,  while  he  exhorts  him 
to  "flee  youthful  lusts"  (v.  22),  to  "follow  righteous- 
ness, faith,  charity,  peace,"  etc.  (v.  22),  to  "  avoid  fool- 
ish and  unlearned  questions"  (v.  23).  Instead  of  telling 
him  what  a  Supreme  Apostle  ought  to  be,  he  tells  him 
that  "  the  servant  of  the  Lord  must  not  strive,  but  be 
gentle,  apt  to  teach,"  etc.  (v.  24).  It  may  be  said,  in- 
deed, that  many  of  these  advices  have  respect  to  com- 
mon Christian  duties,  and  that  it  might  as  well  be  argued 
that  Timothy  was  a  private  Christian,  as  that  he  was  a 
mere  Presbyter.  And  so  it  might,  if  there  were  not  min- 


OFFICIAL  RANK  OF  TIMOTHY,  127 

gled  with  these  exhortations  to  common  duties,  some 
which  clearly  and  confessedly  relate  to  those  of  Pres- 
byters. But  as  there  are  none  which  indubitably  recog- 
nize Timothy  as  an  Apostle,  the  cases  are  not  parallel. 

In  ch,  3 :  14,  after  describing  the  false  teachers 
and  seducers,  who  were  to  be  looked  for,  Paul  exhorts 
Timothy,  not,  as  might  have  been  expected  on  the  op- 
posite hypothesis,  to  interpose  his  apostolical  author- 
ity, but  to  continue  in  the  things  which  he  had  learned, 
knowing  of  whom  he  had  received  them.  And  on 
what  ground  does  he  exhort  him  so  to  do?  Not  be- 
cause he  was  an  Apostle,  but  because  he  had  fully 
known  Paul's  doctrine,  manner  of  life,  etc.  (vs.  10,  11), 
and  because  he  had  himself  from  a  child  known  the 
holy  Scriptures,  which  were  able  to  m.ake  him  wise 
unto  salvation,  and  which  were  given  that  the  maa 
of  God  might  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto 
all  good  works  (vs.  15-17).  Here  again  the  most 
tempting  opportunities  of  mentioning  Timothy's  apos- 
tolic rank,  and  insisting  on  his  apostolic  duties,  are 
neglected.  This  is  still  more  strikingly  the  case  in  the 
last  chapter,  where,  in  view  of  his  own  approaching 
death^  the  Apostle  exhorts  Timothy  to  a  faithful  and 
diligent  discharge  of  dutj.  Here^,  if  anywhere,  some- 
thing might  be  looked  for  which  should  set  at  rest  the 
question  of  Timothy's  official  superiority  to  the  Pres- 
byters at  Ephesus.  But  what  are  the  exhortations 
given  him?  To  preach  the  word,  to  reprove,  rebuke, 
and  exhort,  to  be  watchful,  to  endure  afElistions,  and 
to  do  the  work  of  an  evangelist  (ch.  4 :  5). 

Thia  last  word"  has  b^n  taken  in  a  twofold  sense. 
Some  suppose  it  to  denote  a  presbyter  clothed  with 
extraordinary  powers,  for  a  limited  time  and  a  specific 


128  ESSAY  IV. 

purpose.  Others  understand  by  it  a  preacher  indefi- 
nitely, without  any  reference  to  his  official  rank.  The 
former  supposition,  though  perhaps  incapable  of  de- 
monstration, is  far  more  probable,  and  in  better  keep- 
ing with  the  tenor  of  the  New  Testament,  than  the 
supposition  that  Timothy  was  an  Apostle.  If  adopted, 
it  explains  completely  why  he  was  commissioned  to 
ordain  alone  (as  alleged  by  our  opponents)  and  to  dis- 
cipline presbyters.  But  let  it  be  granted  that  the 
word  means  nothing  more,  than  preacher  of  the  gospel: 
it  only  furnishes  another  instance  of  the  extraordinary 
fact,  that  every  title  and  description,  which  could  be 
applied  to  Timothy,  seems  to  have  come  into  the  mind 
of  Paul  more  readily  than  that  of  Apostle,  which  he 
seems  indeed  to  have  strangely  forgotten,  not  only  as 
respects  the  word,  but  the  thing  which  it  denotes. 
However  then  we  may  explain  the  word  evangelist^  it 
favours  our  conclusion.  If  it  means  nothing  more 
than  a  preacher^  it  indirectly  strengthens  our  presump- 
tion that  Timothy  was  no  Apostle.  If  it  means  an  ex- 
traordinary temporary  officer,  it  precludes  the  neces- 
sity of  supposing  that  he  was  more  than  a  presbyter, 
even'  on  the  supposition  that  he  exercised  more  than 
presbyterial  powers. 

In  ch.  4  :  9,  Paul  commands  Timothy  to  come  to 
him  as  soon  as  possible,  and  in  v.  21  he  fixes  the  time, 
before  which  he  wishes  him  to  come.  The  reason 
which  he  gives  is  that  Demas,  Crescens,  Tychicus,  and 
Titus  had  left  him.  Luke  was  the  only  attendant  or 
viT7)pkrTr)'^  who  still  continued  with  him.  Does  not  this 
imply  that  Timothy  was  wanted  to  supply  their 
place?  This  is  rendered  still  more  probable  by  the 
direction  which  is  added  in  v.  11.     '•  Take  Mark  and 


OFFICIAL   RANK   OF  TIMOTHY,  129 

bring  liim  with  thea,  for  he  is  profitable  to  me  et? 
SiaKoviav^  L  e.,  as  a  hiaKovo^^  in  which  capacity  both 
Mark  and  Timothy  had  travelled  with  Paul  before,  as 
we  have  seen.  With  this,  too,  agrees  the  subsequent 
■direction,  as  to  the  cloak  and  parchments,  from  which 
of  course  nothing  can  be  proved  as  to  Timothy's  offi- 
cial rank,  but  which,  by  a  vast  majority  of  readers, 
must  be  seen  to  agree  better  with  the  supposition  of 
his  inferiority  than  with  that  of  his  equality.  And 
thus  at  the  close  of  Paul's  last  epistle  to  Timothy,  we 
find  the  latter  acting  in  the  same  capacity  as  when 
he  first  appeared  in  history,  namely,  that  of  a  personal 
attendant  upon  Paul,  and  subject  to  his  orders.  He 
is  here  recalled  as  one  who  had  been  absent  on  a 
temporary  service.  This  serves  to  corroborate  the 
conclusion  that,  if  Timothy  did  exercise  powers  above 
those  of  presbyters,  it  was  hy  virtue  of  a  special  com- 
mission. 

Titus  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
In  the  second  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  his  name  oc- 
curs nine  times,  in  one  of  which  places  Paul  calls  him 
"  my  brother"  (2  Cor.  2  :  13),  and  in  another,  "  my 
partner  and  fellow-labourer  concerning  you,"  i.  e.  the 
Corinthians  (8 ;  28).  In  the  seventh  chapter,  he  is 
three  times  spoken  of,  as  having  cheered  Paul  by  join- 
ing him  in  Macedonia  (v.  6),  and  by  the  good  account 
which  he  gave  of  the  Corinthian  Christians  (v.  13), 
and  as  one  who  felt  a  peculiar  interest  in  their  welfare 
(v.  15).  In  the  twelfth  chapter  he  is  again  mentioned 
(v.  18)  as  a  messenger  from  Paul  to  the  Church  at  Co- 
rinth. In  Galatians  he  is  incidentally  referred  to 
(ch.  2:1,  3)  as  having  accompanied  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas on  a  visit  to  Jerusalem,  In  2  Tim.  4 :  10,  as  we 
*6 


130  ESSAY   IV. 

have  seen  already,  Titus  is  said  to  have  left  Paul  and 
gone  into  Dalmatia.  In  none  of  these  cases  is  there 
any  thing  to  indicate  that  Titus  was  superior  in  rank 
to  presbyters,  the  proof  of  which,  if  it  exist  at  all, 
must  be  derived  from  Paul's  epistle  to  himself. 

In  the  title  of  that  epistle,  Titus  is  addressed,  not  as 
an  Apostle,  but  as  Paul's  "  own  son  after  the  common 
faith,"  and  as  one  whom  he  had  left  in  Crete,  to  regu- 
late ra  Xeiirovjay  the  things  which  Paul  himself  had 
left  undone.  One  of  his  duties  is  particularly  men- 
tioned, that  of  ordaining  presbyters  in  every  city  (v.  5.) 
From  this  some  infer,  as  in  the  case  of  Timothy,  that 
Titus  held  an  office  superior  to  that  of  presbyter.  Now 
let  it  be  observed  that  no  other  proof  of  this  is  even 
alleged.  The  truth  of  the  allegation,  therefore,  rests 
on  the  assumption  that  a  presbyter,  as  such,  could  not 
ordain,  which  is  the  very  point  in  controversy.  There 
is  no  proof  that  Titus  was  more  than  a  presbyter,  un- 
less we  are  forced  to  infer  it  from  the  fact  that  he 
ordained.  But  how  can  such  an  inference  be  neces- 
sary, when  we  may  suppose  that  he  ordained  as  a 
member  of  a  presbytery,  or  as  an  evangelist,  by  virtue 
of  a  special  commission  ?  It  is  not  asserted  that  he 
must  have  done  so,  but  merely  that  he  may  have  done 
so,  and  consequently  that  his  ordaining  presbyters  does 
not  of  itself  prove  that  he  was  an  Apostle.  Since, 
then,  we  are  as  much  entitled  to  assume  that  presby- 
ters ordained,  as  that  Titus  was  not  a  mere  presbyter, 
let  the  question  between  us  be  determined  by  inquiring 
which  hypothesis  agrees  best  with  the  whole  drift  and 
tone  of  the  epistle.  Is  Titus  spoken  of  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  would  naturally  lead  us  to  regard  him  as  Paul's 
official  equal  and  a  "  supreme  Apostle,"  or  as  his  in- 


OFE'ICIAL  RA^'K  OF  TIMOTHT.  131 

ferior,  subject  to  his  orders,  and  with  no  permanent 
rank  or  authority  above  that  of  a  presbyter  ? 

After  giving  the  qualifications  of  presbyters  or 
bishops  (Tit.  1 :  6-9),  which  are  the  same  as  those  pre- 
scribed to  Timothy  (1  Tim.  3 :  2-7),  Paul  exhorts  Ti- 
tus to  rebuke  "  gainsayers,"  "  unruly  and  vain  talkers 
and  deceivers ;"  to  "  rebuke  them  sharply  that  they 
may  be  sound  in  the  faith"  (vs.  9-18).  This  any  pres- 
byter was  competent  to  do.  In  opposition  to  such,  he 
commands  Titus  (ch.  2  : 1)  to  "  speak  the  things  which 
become  sound  doctrine,"  and  especially  to  urge  upon 
the  different  classes  of  the  people  their  relative  duties 
(vs.  2-6).  These  things  he  was  to  teach,  not  only  by 
precept  but  example  (v.  7),  "  in  all  things  showing 
thyself  a  pattern  of  good  works,  in  doctrine  showing 
uncorruptness,  gravity,  sincerity,  sound  speech  that 
cannot  be  condemned,  that  he  that  is  of  the  contrary 
part  may  be  ashamed,  having  no  evil  thing  to  say  of 
you"  (v.  8).  There  is  not  a  duty  here  enumerated 
which  is  not  incumbent,  at  the  present  moment,  upon 
every  Christian  presbyter.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
concluding  exhortation  in  this  chapter  (v.  15),  "  these 
things  speak  and  exhort  and  rebuke  with  all  autho- 
rity; let  no  man  despise  thee."  The  only  way  in 
which  these  counsels  can  be  made  to  have  any  bearing 
upon  Titus's  apostolical  dignity,  is  by  assuming  that 
the  persons  whom  he  was  to  teach,  rebuke,  etc.  were 
'all  presbyters.  Not  only  is  there  no  intimation  of  this 
fact,  but  the  contrary  is  evident  from  the  whole  con- 
text, in  which  the  subjects  of  this  discipline  are  parti- 
cularly mentioned,  not  as  elders  in  the  church,  but  as 
aged  men  and  women  (ch.  2 :  2,  3),  young  men  "and 
women  (4-6),  servants  (9,  10),  etc.    The  same  thing  is 


132  ESSAY  IV. 

true  of  the  directions  in  the  last  chapter,  where  Titus 
is  commanded  to  affirm  constantly  the  duties  of  life 
and  the  .doctrines  of  grace  (v.  8),  but  exhorted  to  avoid 
foolish  questions  and  genealogies  and  contentions  and 
strivings  about  the  law,  as  unprofitable  and  vain  (v.  9). 
All  this  would  be  perfectly  appropriate,  if  addressed 
to  any  presbyter. 

Titus  3 :  10.  "A  man  that  is  an  heretic  after  the 
first  and  second  admonition  reject."  The  power  to 
judge  heretics  is  certainly  ascribed  to  Titus ;  but  in 
what  capacity?  Our  opponents  say,  in  that  of  an 
apostle ;  we  say  in  that  of  a  presbyter.  The  only 
ground  of  their  conclusion  is  the  twofold  assumption, 
that  Titus  was  to  be  the  sole  judge  of  religious 
teachers;  and  that  he  could  not  judge  them  with- 
out holding  a  superior  office.  The  same  answers 
may  be  given  here  as  in  the  case  of  ordination,  but 
with  still  more  force,  because  it  is  not  even  certain 
in  the  case  before  us,  that  any  other  heresy  is  meant 
but  that  of  private  Christians.  Granting,  however, 
that  heretical  teachers  are  specially  referred  to,  and 
that  rejecting  them  means  refusing  to  ordain  them 
(which  is  far  from  being  evident),  or  to  excommunicate 
them ;  these  are  acts  which,  according  to  the  Presby- 
terian theory,  are  competent  to  presbyters,  and  cannot 
therefore  be  assumed  as  proofs  of  apostolical  authority. 
The  question  is  whether  Titus  performed  acts  which 
presbyters,  as  such,  could  not  perform.  The  adverse 
party  answer  yes,  for  he  judged  heretical  presbyters, 
and  therefore  could  not  be  a  presbyter  himself  We 
answer  no,  because  presbyters  being  the  highest  order 
in  the  permanent  organization  in  the  church,  if  judged 
at  all,  they  must  be  judged  by  presbyters. 


OFFICIAL  RANK  OF  TIMOTHY,  133 

We  have  now  gone  tlirough  these  three  epistles 
in  detail,  and  the  results  of  the  examination  may  be 
stated  thus. 

1.  Timothy  and  Titus  are  nowhere  addressed  or 
described,  in  Paul's  epistles  to  them,  as  apostles. 

2.  A  large  part  of  the  admonitions  and  instructions 
given  to  them  are  such  as  might  have  been  given  to 
mere  presbyters. 

3.  The  powers  of  ordination  and  discipline  are  cer- 
tainly ascribed  to  them,  but  without  determining  in 
what  capacity  they  were  to  exercise  them. 

4.  The  supposition  of  an  extraordinary  commis- 
sion to  these  two  men  as  evangelists,  and  the  supposi- 
tion that  they  acted  as  mere  presbyters,  are  at  least  as 
probable  as  the  supposition  that  they  acted  as  apostles. 

5.  No  proof,  therefore,  can  be  drawn  from  these 
epistles,  of  the  apostolical  authority  of  either. 


ESSAY    V, 

ON  THE   ANGELS   OF  THE   CHURCHES  AND   THE    FALSE 
APOSTLES. 

Besides  tlie  case  of  Timotliy  and  Titus,  an  attempt 
has  been  made  to  prove  that  the  apostohc  office  was 
perpetual  or  permanent,  from  certain  passages  of  the 
Apocalypse.  The  first  is  that  containing  the  Epis- 
tles to  the  Seven  Churches  of  Asia  (Rev.  1 :  20.  2 :  1^ 
8,  12,  18.  3 :  1,  7,  14).  The  argument  founded  upon 
these  epistles  is,  that  the  "angel"  of  each  church  is 
addressed  in  the  singular  number,  as  if  personally  re- 
sponsible for  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  church ; 
from  which  it  is  said  to  follow,  that  each  of  these 
churches  must  have  had  an  official  head,  possessing 
exclusively  the  power  of  government,  and  as  we  know 
from  Acts  20  :  17,  that  in  one  of  them,  at  least,  "there 
was  a  plurality  of  presbyters,  this  official  head  must 
have  been  an  apostle  or  apostle-bishop. 

This  argument  assumes  without  proof,  that  the  "an- 
gels "  here  addressed  were  the  regular  official  rulers  of 
the  churches,  although  the  word  "angel"  is  employed, 
throughout  the  book,  in  another  sense,  and  although 
the  supposition  that  they  were  guardian  angels  is  in 
perfect  keeping  with  the  language  of  Scripture  else- 


THE  ANGELS  OF  THE  CHURCHES.       135 

where,  and  particularly  in  the  Book  of  Daniel,  the  one 
which  most  resembles  the  Apocalypse.  Even  granting 
the  probability  that  the  term  is  here  used  to  denote  an 
office  in  the  church,  the  necessity  of  assuming  this  with- 
out proof  shows  on  how  precarious  a  foundation  the  ar- 
gument is  built.  And  even  if  it  could  be  proved,  how 
slight  would  the  presumption  thus  created  be  against  the 
uniform  tenor  of  the  New  Testament,  as  seen  already. 
The  adverse  argument  also  assumes  that  these  offi- 
cial Angels  must  have  been  superior  to  Presbyters, 
and  in  order  to  confirm  this,  it  assumes  that  the  Pres- 
byters of  Ephesus,  mentioned  in  Acts  20  :  17,  were 
officers  of  one  church,  over  whom  the  Angel  pre- 
sided as  a  prelate  or  diocesan.  But  we  have  just  as 
much  right  to  allege,  on  our  part,  that  the  Presbyters 
spoken  of  in  Acts  were  ruling  Elders,  or  that  they 
were  the  presbyters  of  churches  near  to  Ephesus,  or 
that  if  there  was  a  plurality  of  presbyters  at  Ephesus 
in  Paul's  time,  there  was  only  one  when  John  wrote 
the  Apocalypse.  This  last  is  rendered  highly  probable 
by  analogy.  In  our  own  cities  there  are  churches 
organized  on  Presbyterian  principles,  which  anciently 
had  a  plurality  of  ministers,  but  as  the  population  has 
increased  or  shifted,  these  collegiate  churches  have 
given  rise  to  several,  each  with  its  own  pastor.  Now 
we  know  that  in  the  planting  of  Christianity,  churches 
were  first  established  at  the  central  points  of  influence, 
from  which,  by  a  sort  of  colonization,  others  were  de- 
rived. For  obvious  reasons,  converts  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  these  mother  churches  would  adhere  to 
them  until  a  separate  organization  became  necessary. 
Hence  the  churches  founded  in  the  more  important 
cities  of  the  old  world  would  be  burdensome  charges, 


136  ESSAY   V. 

and  miglit  well  employ  a  number  of  presbyters,  even 
supposing  all  such  to  have  laboured  in  word  and  doc- 
trine. That  there  were  such  presbyters  at  Ephesus, 
when  Paul  sent  thither  from  Miletus,  we  read  in  Acts 
20 :  17.  That  other  churches  were  derived  from  that 
of  Ephesus,  and  that  right  early,  will  scarcely  be  denied. 
This  would  leave  the  mother  church  with  its  "  Angel," 
not  as  a  superior  to  the  presbyters  around,  but  as  their 
equal,  or  at  most  as  a  primus  inter  pares. 

The  personal  address  to  the  Angel,  then,  proves 
nothing  more  than  the  like  address,  in  analogous  cir- 
cumstances, would  prove  now.  Within  the  memory  of 
many  persons  still  alive,  the  First  Presbyterian  Church 
of  New- York  had  an  eldership  including  three  ordained 
pastors,  who  alternately  ministered  in  as  many  places 
of  worship,  all  belonging  to  the  same  church  organiza- 
tion. This  is  a  fact  in  Presbyterian  church-history  be- 
yond all  doubt ;  but  it  is  equally  certain  that  in  the 
General  Assembly  of  1842  a  minister  appeared  bearing 
a  commission  in  which  he  was  described  as  Bishop 
of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  in  New-York  City. 
Now  supposing  documentary  memorials  of  these  two 
facts  to  reach  posterity,  how  plausibly  might  it  be  ar- 
gued, that  as  one  man  was  recognized  in  1842  as  the 
bishop  of  that  church,  and  as  it  had  certainly  three 
pastors  half  a  century  before,  therefore  the  bishop  in 
question  was  a  prelate  or  diocesan,  superior  in  rank  to 
other  Presbyterian  ministers.  The  inconclusiveness 
of  this  deduction  would  apj^ear  on  the  discovery,  that 
in  the  mean  time  other  affiliated  churches  had  sprung 
up  and  left  the  "  First  Church"  with  a  single  pastor, 
who,  according  to  our  usage  and  our  constitution,  was 
styled  in  certain  documents  its  bishop.     Even  if  the 


THE  ANGELS  OF  THE  CHURCHES.       137 

analogy  between  the  cases  were  fortuitous,  it  would 
be  a  striking  one ;  but  when  it  springs,  as  we  have 
seen,  from  a  coincidence  of  circumstances,  and  the  uni- 
form operation  of  analogous  causes,  it  seems  to  war- 
rant the  conclusion,  that  a  mode  of  reasoning,  which 
would  be  fallacious  in  the  one  case,  may  be  falla- 
cious in  the  other.  We  say  may  be  fallacious,  for 
we  need  no  more  than  this  to  justify  us  in  resisting 
the  attempt  to  set  up,  as  essential  to  the  organi- 
zation of  the  church,  an  institution  which  can  only 
be  shown  to  have  existed  in  the  apostolic  times  by  the 
evidence  of  passages  admitting  of  two  opposite  inter- 
pretations, with  at  least  an  equal  share  of  probability. 
For  the  truth  is  that  on  either  hypothesis  (the  Presby- 
terian or  Episcopal)  this  passage  may  be  easily  ex- 
plained, and  for  that  very  reason  cannot  fairly  be 
adduced  as  decisive  23roof  in  favour  of  either. 

The  only  remaining,  instance,  in  which  aj30stolic 
powers  are  alleged  to  be  recognized  in  Scripture,  as 
belonging  to  persons  not  original  apostles,  is  that  of 
the  ylrevBaTToaroXoi,  Spoken  of  by  Paul  in  2  Cor.  11 :  13, 
"For  such  are  false  apostles,'  deceitful  workers,  trans- 
forming themselves  into  the  apostles  of  Christ ;"  and 
by  our  Saviour,  in  his  epistle  to  the  church  of  Ephe- 
sus,  Eev.  2:2,  "  thou  hast  tried  them  which  say  they 
are  apostles,  and  are  not,  and  hast  found  them  liars." 
The  argument  from  these  texts  is,  that  if  there  had  not 
been  successors  to  the  apostles,  there  could  not  have 
been  pretenders  to  that  office.  Upon  this  we  make 
the  following  observations. 

1.  The  word  airocrroXos  is  used,  as  we  have  seen, 
in  a  plurality  of  meanings,  viz.  a  messenger  of  any 
kind ;    a  religious  messenger  or  missionary ;    and  an 


138  ESSAY  y. 

apostle  in  the  strict  and  highest  sense.  Now  the  ad- 
verse argument  assumes  that  uTroaToXoi  must  have 
this  last  sense  in  Rev.  2 :  2.  And  yet  it  is  certainly 
not  inconceivable,  that  the  impostors  spoken  of  may 
have  assumed  the  name  and  character  of  missionaries, 
or  of  special  messengers  to  or  from  the  churches.  The 
objection,  that  such  an  imposition  could  not  be  suc- 
cessful, and  that  no  sufficient  motive  of  ambition  or  of 
interest  can  be  supposed,  is  purely  arbitrarj'',  and  at 
least  not  favoured  by  the  experience  of  later  times,  in 
which  analogous  impostures  have  by  no  means  been 
uncommon.  There  is  no  case  of  remarkable  impoS' 
ture  upon  record,  the  reality  of  which  might  not  be 
called  in  question,  on  the  ground  of  a  strong  antece- 
dent improbability. 

2.  But  granting  that  airocrroXoi^  in  Rev.  2:  2,  has 
its  highest  sense,  why  may  we  not  suppose  that  the 
impostors  mentioned  actually  personated  some  of  the 
original  thirteen  ?  To  such  imposture  the  temptations 
were  too  obvious  to  need  specification,  and  addressed 
to  various  corruptions  of  the  human  heart,  the  love  of 
notoriety,  the  love  of  power,  and  the  love  of  gain.  If 
it  be  answered  that  no  like  attempt  has  been  made  in 
modern  times,  for  example,  to  personate  the  Bishops 
in  this  country ;  it  may  be  suggested  in  reply,  that  the 
facilities  for  such  a  fraud  are  not  so  great  as  in  ,  the 
ancient  church,  and  the  inducements  infinitely  less. 
If,  again,  it  be  answered,  that  at  the  time  when  the 
last  of  these  two  texts  was  written,  there  was  only  one 
original  Apostle  left,  and  that  one  in  extreme  old  age, 
it  may  be  replied,  that  as  the  text  in  question  contains 
the  words  of  our  Lord  himself,  in  commendation  of 
the  previous  conduct  of  the  church  at  Ephesus,  there 


FALSE   APOSTLES.  139 

is  nothing  to  fix  the  date  of  the  transaction  mentioned, 
or  to  show  that  the  "  liars"  there  referred  to  were  not 
identical,  or  at  least  contemporary,  with  the  "false 
apostles"  of  whom  Paul  speaks  in  2  Cor.  11 :  13.  Even 
after  the  death  of  an  Apostle,  his  name  might  be  suc- 
cessfully assumed  by  an  impostor  for  a  time. 

But,  granting  that  the  fraud  referred  to  was  not 
that  of  personating  the  original  Apostles,  but  that  of 
falsely  claiming  to  be  their  successors  in  the  apostolic 
of&ce,  it  by  no  means  follows,  that  they  must  have  had 
genuine  and  authorized  successors.  If  a  man  should 
visit  certain  parts  of  Eurojoe,  where  America  is  least 
known,  and  there  give  himself  out  as  a  duke  or  earl 
of  the  United  States;  as  soon  as  his  imposture  was 
detected,  he  would  probably  acquire  the  name  of  the 
pretended  duke  or  earl  of  the  United  States.  Would 
the  correct  application  of  this  epithet  imply,  that  there 
were  really  such  orders  of  hereditary  nobles  under  our 
constitution  ?  It  may  be  said,  that  the  analogy  is  not 
complete,  because  there  have  never  been  such  distinc- 
tions known  among  us,  whereas  all  admit  that  there 
had  been  Apostles.  Let  us  then  change  the  illustra- 
tion, and,  to  make  the  correspondence  with  the  ancient 
case,  as  our  opponents  state  it,  more  complete,  let  us 
suppose  that,  while  Charles  Carroll  of  Carrollton  was 
the  only  surviving  signer  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, an  American  had  palmed  himself  upon  the 
European  world,  as  one  of  that  famous  company.  He 
would  have  been  a  pseudo-signer  of  the  Declaration. 
Would  it  be  a  valid  inference  from  this  phrase,  that 
there  must  have  been  successors  to  the  original  sign- 
ers, and  that  this  man's  fraud  consisted  in  pretending 
to  be  one  of  these' when  he  had  never  been  promoted  to 


140  ESSAY   V. 

that  dignity  ?  If  to  this  analogy  it  be  objected,  t^jat 
the  signers  of  the  Declaration  did  not  hold  an  office,  in 
which  they  might  be  expected,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
to  have  successors,  let  us,  in  order  to  complete  the 
illustration,  have  recourse  to  ancient  history,  and  sup- 
pose that  after  the  expulsion  of  the  Tarquins,  and  the 
introduction  of  the  consular  regime^  an  impostor  had 
travelled  through  the  provinces  pretending  to  be  king 
of  Eome,  or  heir-apparent  to  the  throne ;  and  that  this 
impostor  had  been  called,  in  ancient  histories,  the 
pretended  king  or  prince  of  Rome.  Would  this  have 
proved  that  there  was  really  a  king,  or  royal  family, 
in  that  republic  ?  Surely  not ;  and  yet  the  principle, 
involved  in  such  an  inference,  appears  to  be  precisely 
that  on  which  the  adverse  argument  in  this  case  rests, 
viz.  that  the  existence  of  a  counterfeit  demonstrates 
the  existence  of  a  genuine  original. 

The  fallacy  consists  in  not  distinguishing  between 
the  absolute  existence  of  a  thing  in  rerura  natura,  or  its 
•historical  existence  at  a  former  period,  and  its  actual 
existence  at  a  given  time.  There  cannot  be  a  counter- 
feit of  any  thing  which  never  had  a  being ;  but  there 
may  be  a  counterfeit  of  things  no  longer  in  existence, 
as,  for  instance,  of  a  coin  or  medal  which  has  been  de- 
stroyed. If  there  had  never  been  aTroaroXot,,  there 
never  could  have  been  -xlrevBaTroaToXoL ;  but,  on  the 
hypothesis  (and  it  is  stated  here  as  nothing  more)  that 
the  apostolic  office,  as  distinct  from  that  of  presbyter, 
Avas  temporary  in  design  and  fact,  those  who  claimed 
to  be  successors  of  the  twelve,  in  their  peculiar  apos- 
tolic powers,  would  be  just  as  truly  -xfrevSaTroaToXoi, 
as  if  they  had  pretended  to  be  Peter,  John,  or  Paul. 
Indeed,  the  name  seems  to  appl}^,  with  greater  empha- 


FALSE   APOSTLES.  141 

sis,  to  those  who  claimed  au  office  which  had  no  exists 
ence,  than  to  those  who  claimed  one  which  was  real, 
but  to  which  they  personally  had  no  right.  If  he  was 
a  false  apostle  who  merely  forged  his  own  credentials, 
how  much  more  did  he  deserve  the  name,  who  forged 
the  very  office  which  he  claimed  to  hold. 

All  this  is  true,  on  the  hypothesis,  that  the  false 
apostles  of  the  early  church  were  pretenders  to  the 
apostolic  office  as  a  permanent  part  of  the  church  or- 
ganization, claiming  to  be  duly  ordained  successors 
of  the  original  apostles.  But  neither  of  the  supposi- 
tions which  have  been  considered,  and  which  Bishop 
Onderdonk  regards  as  the  only  possible  hypothesis, 
is  so  natural  as  a  fourth,  which  is  free  from  all  the 
difficulties  that  attend  the  others.  It  is  simply  this, 
that  the  false  apostles  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures 
neither  personated  any  of  the  original  thirteen,  nor 
claimed  to  be  their  official  successors,  regularly  con- 
stituted by  the  rite  of  ordination,  but  asserted  an  in- 
dependent claim,  as  original  apostles,  divinely  com- 
missioned just  as  the  first  thirteen  had  been.  The 
frequency  with  which  such  pretensions  have  been 
made  in  later  times,  shows  clearly  that  there  may  be 
motives  strong  enough  to  lead  to  the  imposture,  and 
that  they  may  for  a  time  have  great  success.  That 
such  men  as  Simon  Magus,  Demas,  and  Diotrephes, 
might  easily  be  tempted  to  assert  this  false  claim, 
and  might  easily  obtain  a  temporary  reputation  as 
apostles,  is  certainly  a  natural  and  probable  hypothe- 
sis. The  only  objection  is,  that  such  could  not  have 
wrought  "the  signs  of  an  apostle;"  those  miracles 
which  all  men  knew  to  be  indispensable  credentials  of 
the  apostolic  office,  and  that  such  an  imposture  would 
therefore  have  been  hopeless. 


142  ESSAY   V. 

To  this  it  may  be  answered,  1.  That  the  miraculous 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost  were  not  confined  to  the  Apos- 
tles, nor  even  to  good  men,  and  that  we  can  easily 
conceive  of  their  being  abused  for  ambitious  purposes, 
before  they  were  withdrawn.  2.  Those  who  had  never 
received  the  Holy  Ghost  sometimes  deceived  the  peo- 
ple with  "lying  wonders,"  that  is,  either  juggling 
tricks,  or  wonders  wrought  by  a  satanic  influence,  as 
in  the  case  of  Simon  Magus.  3.  The  claim  to  a  divine 
authority  might  be  maintained  among  the  credulous, 
without  even  an  attempt  to  work  a  miracle,  as  appears 
from  the  case  of  Mohammed,  who  was  often  called 
upon,  by  Pagans,  Jews,  and  Christians,  to  evince  the 
truth  of  his  pretensions  in  this  way,  and  yet,  without 
compliance,  still  maintained  his  hold  upon  the  popular 
belief.  In  either  of  these  ways,  the  false  apostles 
might  have  obtained  credit,  for  a  time,  as  men  directly 
commissioned  from  Heaven,  to  complete  or  abrogate 
preceding  revelations.  And  this  was  the  more  easy 
at  the  time  referred  to,  because  the  canon  of  the  New 
Testament  was  not  closed,  and  the  people  had,  as  yet, 
no  reason  to  believe,  that  the  series  of  divine  commu- 
nications was  at  an  end.  What  was  thus  a  priori 
likely  to  occur,  sterns  to  have  actually  taken  place,  in 
reference  at  least  to  inspiration,  from  the  warnings 
contained  in  the  New  Testament  against  false  prophets, 
and  the  exhortations  not  to  believe  every  spirit,  but  to 
try  the  spirits  whether  they  were  really  from  God, 
to  prove  all  things  and  hold  fast  that  which  is  good. 
If  the  false  prophets  of  the  early  church  pretended  to 
be  prophets  sent  immediately  from  God,  it  is  natural 
to  conclude  that  the  false  apostles  made  a  like  claim, 
rather  than  that  they  either  assumed  the  names  of  the 


THE   APOSTLESHIP   A  TEMPORARY   OFFICE.       143 

original  thirteen,  or  claimed  to  be  their  regular  suc- 
cessors in  the  church  by  ordination.  This  being  the 
case,  the  existence  of  false  apostles,  far  from  proving 
that  the  office  was  continued,  only  proves  that  it  had 
once  existed. 

These  are  all  the  passages  of  Scripture  in  which, 
with  any  show  of  probability,  proofs  of  the  continu- 
ance of  the  Apostolic  office  have  been  sought.  An 
attempt  has  now  been  made  to  show,  that  its  continu- 
ance is  nowhere  recognized  in  Scripture,  either  by  direct 
assertion  of  the  fact,  by  a  statement  of  the  necessary 
qualifications  for  the  Apostolic  office,  by  directions  for 
the  ordination  of  Apostles,  by  the  record  of  their  hav- 
ing been  in  fact  ordained,  by  the  application  of  the 
name  Apostle  in  its  highest  sense  to  any  not  of 
the  original  thirteen,  or,  lastly,  even  by  the  indirect 
ascription  of  peculiar  Apostolic  powers  to  any  not  in- 
cluded in  that  number.  Even  supposing  one  or  more 
of  these  distinct  proofs  to  be  wanting  accidentally,  and 
the  defect  to  admit  of  explanation,  it  is  too  much  to 
assume  that  they  were  all  omitted,  and  are  all  to  be 
supplied  by  mere  conjecture.  It  is  too  much  to  as- 
sume that  the  office  of  Apostle  was  to  be  perpetuated 
by  succession,  and  yet  that  it  is  nowhere  so  alleged 
in  Scripture,  nor  the  qualifications  of  Apostles  stated, 
nor  the  ordination  of  an  Apostle  anywhere  recorded, 
nor  the  name  Apostle  so  applied,  nor  any  persons 
represented  as  exercising  the  peculiar  Apostolic  pow- 
ers. There  will,  of  course,  be  a  difference  of  judgment 
as  to  the  question  of  fact,  whether  these  proofs  are 
thus  wanting ;  but  it  is  surely  not  too  much  to  assume 
that,  if  they  are,  the  perpetuity  of  the  Apostleship 
cannot  be  maintained. 


ESSAY    VI. 


ON   THE   APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION. 

In  opposition  to  the  doctrine,  tliat  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation is  invalid  because  not  derived  from  a  superior 
order  of  ministers,  tbere  is  a  twofold  argument,  nega- 
tive and  positive.  The  negative  argument  is  founded 
on  the  fact,  that  there  is  no  order  of  church-officers 
existing  by  divine  right  superior  to  Presbyters ;  that 
no  such  order  can  exist  as  the  successors  of  the  primi- 
tive Bishops,  for  these  were  identical  with  the  primi- 
tive Presbyters ;  nor  as  successors  of  the  Apostles,  for 
these,  as  such,  had  no  successors.  The  positive  argu- 
ment is  founded  on  the  fact,  that  the  primitive  Presby- 
ters actually  exercised  the  highest  powers  now  belong- 
ing to  the  ministry. 

There  is  only  one  ground  left,  on  which  the  validity 
of  Presbyterian  ordination  can  be  called  in  question,  to 
wit,  that  it  is  not  derived  even  from  true  Presbyters, 
that  is  to  say,  from  the  regular  successors  of  the  primi- 
tive Presbyters.  This  ground  has  commonly  been 
taken  by  the  advocates  for  the  necessity  of  Bishops  as 
an  order  superior  to  Presbyters.     It  is  through  such 


THE   APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION.  145 

Bishops  tliat  the  succession  has  been  usually  traced. 
The  two  doctrines  are  not  however  identical,  nor  even 
inseparable.  Even  granting' what  we  have  alleged — 
that  there  is  no  superior  order,  and  that  Presbyters 
have  always  rightfully  exercised  the  highest  powers 
now  belonging  to  the  ministry' — it  may  still  be  said 
that  this,  at  most,  only  proves  modern  Bishops  to  be 
nothing  more  than  Presbyters,  and  as  such  authorized 
to  govern  and  ordain,  but  that  these  powers  may  not 
be  claimed  by  those  who  cannot,  like  the  Bishops, 
prove  themselves  to  be  the  successors  of  the  primitive 
Presbyters. 

This  argument  against  the  validity  of  Presbyterian 
ordination  I  propose  to  examine ;  but  before  doing 
so,  it  will  be  necessary  to  define  the  meaning  of  certain 
terms  continually  used  on  both  sides  of  the  controver- 
sy. The  necessity  of  this  arises  from  the  fact,  that 
much  confusion  has  been  introduced  into  the  subject 
by  the  abuse  of  terms,  and  by  confounding  under  one 
name  things  which  are  materially  different.  The  sub- 
stitution of  a  sense  in  the  conclusion  wholly  distinct 
from  that  used  in  the  premises  must  vitiate  the  argu- 
ment, although  the  effect  may  pass  unnoticed.  Hence 
have  arisen  many  current  fallacies,  the  popular  effect 
of  which  has  been  to  give  a  great  advantage  to  that 
party  in  the  controversy,  by  whom  or  in  whose  behalf 
the  stratagem  is  practised.  Thus,  when  the  question  to 
be  agitated  is  whether  apostolical  succession  is  "  neces- 
sary "  in  the  Christian  ministry,  the  term  employed  ad- 
mits of  two  distinct  interpretations.  It  may  be  said  to 
be  necessary,  in  the  sense  of  being  convenient,  useful, 
desirable,  and  therefore  binding  under  ordinary  cir- 
cumstances. The  necessity  here  predicated  of  succes- 
7 


146  ESSAY  VI. 

sion  is  an  improper  or  a  relative  necessity,  from  the 
admission  of  which  it  would  be  most  unfair  to  argue 
the  existence  of  an  absolute  or  strict  necessity,  as  of  a 
condition  sme  qua  7ion,  without  which  there  can  be  no 
valid  ministry.  Yet  these  meanings  of  the  word  are 
easily  confounded,  or  the  one  supposed  to  involve  the 
other,  so  that  our  theoretical  admission  of  the  value  of 
succession,  and  our  requiring  it  in  practice,  is  regarded 
as  a  contradiction  of  our  doctrine  that  it  is  not  essen- 
tial, and  the  seeming  inconsistency  throws  weight  into 
the  scale  of  the  adverse  argument.  The  fallacy  con- 
sists in  the  assumption,  that  the  utility  and  relative 
necessity  of  this  arrangement  springs  from  its  absolute 
necessity,  whereas  it  springs  from  its  simphcity,  conve- 
nience, and  the  want  of  any  better  method  to  perpetu- 
ate the  ministry.  If  we  are  bound  to  effect- a  certain 
end,  we  are  bound  to  effect  it  in  the  most  direct  and 
ef&cacious  method ;  but  if  this  method  ceases  to  possess 
these  qualities,  our  obligation  to  employ  it  ceases, 
while  our  obligation  to  attain  the  end  remains  un- 
altered. 

The  facility  with  which  the  two  things  here  dis- 
tinguished are  confounded  may  be  made  apparent  by 
an  illustration.  It  is  a  rule  of  most  legislative  bodies, 
that  the  qualifications  of  the  members  shall  be  judged 
of  the  body  itself,  and  consequently  that  no  new  mem- 
ber shall  enter  upon  his  functions,  until  formally  re- 
cognized and  admitted  by  his  predecessors.  This 
practice  has  been  found  so  useful  and  is  reckoned  so 
important,  that  with  us  it  is  inserted  in  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  in  England,  whence  it  is  derived,  the  House 
of  Commons  has  by  solemn  votes  asserted  it  to  be  a 
natural  and  necessary  right  inherent  in  the  body.   The 


THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  147 

historical  fact  however  is  that  this  important  power 
has  repeatedly  changed  hands,  and  that  recently  a 
proposition  has  been  made  to  transfer  it.  Whatever 
may  be  thought,  by  those  concerned  and  authorized 
to  judge,  of  the  expediency  of  such  a  change,  it  would 
evidently  not  affect  the  source  or  tenure  or  extent  of 
legislative  power  in  the  members  of  the  house.  The 
obvious  advantages  belonging  to  the  present  system, 
and  the  force  of  habit  and  association,  may  have  led 
men  to  believe  that  reception  by  the  sitting  members 
is  essential  to  the  legislative  standing  of  one  newly 
elected ;  but  in  point  of  fact,  it  is  derived  from  a  source 
exterior  to  the  body  and  independent  of  it.  This  is 
not  adduced  as  an  argument  against  ministerial  suc- 
cession, but  merely  as  an  illustration  of  the  statement 
that  a  relative  necessity  may  come  to  be  confounded 
with  an  absolute  necessity,  or  at  least  regarded  as  a 
certain  proof  of  it. 

The  same  discrimination  is  necessary  in  relation  to 
the  word  "  succession,"  which  may  either  mean  an  unin- 
terrupted series  of  incumbents,  so  that  the  office  is 
never  vacant,  or  a  succession  in  which  the  authority 
of  each  incumbent  is  derived  directly  from  his  prede- 
cessor. The  material  difference  between  these  senses 
of  the  term,  and  the  facility  with  which  they  may 
nevertheless  be  confounded,  will  be  made  clear  by  a 
single  illustration.  The  Kings  of  England  and  the 
Presidents  of  the  United  States  hold  their  office  in  a 
regular  succession,  equally  uninterrupted  and  equally 
necessary  in  both  cases.  But  the  nature  of  the  suc- 
cession is  entirely  different.  Each  King  derives  his 
kingly  office  from  his  personal  relation  to  his  predeces- 
sor.    Each  President  derives  his  office  from  the  people, 


148  ESSAY   VI. 

witliout  any  action  on  the  part  of  his  predecessor  con- 
tributing to  it,  often  against  his  wishes,  and  sometimes 
in  direct  opposition  to  his  claims  as  a  competitor.  The 
former  is  a  derivative  succession  ;  the  latter  a  succes- 
sion of  mere  sequence.  Nor  is  this  the  only  distinc- 
tion to  be  made  in  the  application  of  the  word  "  succes- 
sion," which  may  sometimes  have  relation  to  whole 
bodies  or  classes  of  men,  and  sometimes  to  single  indi- 
viduals, in  which  respect  it  may  be  distinguished  as 
general  or  particular  succession. 

With  these  preliminary  explanations,  let  us  now 
proceed  to  consider  the  necessity  of  what  is  called  the 
Apostolical  Succession  as  a  condition  of  a  valid  ministry. 
And  let  it  be  observed  that  the  amount  of  evidence  in 
this  case  should  bear  due  proportion  to  the  extent  and 
the  importance  of  the  allegations  in  support  of  which 
it  is  adduced.  If  the  question  were  whether  an  un- 
broken succession  is  lawful,  or  expedient,  or  an  ancient 
practice,  or  of  apostolical  origin,  much  less  would  be 
requisite  to  establish  the  affirmative  than  is  required 
to  prove  it  absolutely  necessary  to  the  existence  of  a 
valid  ministry.  When  a  question  of  such  moment  is 
at  issue,  it  is  not  too  much  to  ask  that  the  proof  ad- 
duced be  clear,  conclusive,  and  if  possible  cumulative. 
Especially  may  we  expect  the  proposition  to  be  con- 
firmed by  an  express  divine  command,  or  in  default 
of  that  by  some  clear  Scripture  analogy,  or,  at  the 
least,  by  clear  proof  of  some  natural  necessity  aris- 
ing from  the  nature  of  the  ministry  or  its  design. 
All  these  conditions  might  be  fairly  insisted  on.  The 
want  of  any,  even  of  the  least,  would  shake  the  credit 
of  the  adverse  doctrine,  much  more  the  want  of  several 
and  even  of  the  greatest ;  but  if  all  are  wanting,  we 


THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  149 

must  either  reject  tlie  doctrine  or  believe  -without  a 
reason. 

To  begin  with  the  most  important,  if  not  indispen- 
sable ;  where  is  the  express  command,  requiring  an 
unbroken  succession  in  the  ministry  ?  The  only  pas- 
sage which  can  be  made  to  bear  such  a  construction, 
is  that  in  which  Paul  writes  to  Timothy  :  "  The  thing 
that  thou  hast  heard  of  me  among  many  witnesses, 
the  same  commit  thou  to  faithful  men,  who  shall-  be 
able  to  teach  others  also."  2  Tim.  2:2.  In  order  that 
this  text  may  be  made  to  prove  the  doctrine  now  in 
question,  it  must  be  assumed,  first,  that  it  relates  to  a 
regular  derivative  succession  in  the  ministry ;  then, 
that  it  makes  such  a  succession  absolutely  necessary  ; 
and  lastly,  that  it  makes  the  succession  more  necessary 
than  the  other  things  mentioned  in  connection  with  it, 
namely,  faith  or  fidelity,  ability  to  teach,  and  conformity 
of  doctrine  to  the  apostolic  standard.  Without  this  last 
assumption  the  argument  will  prove  too  much  for  those 
who  use  it,  by  proving  their  own  orders  to  be  vitiated 
by  a  want  of  ability  or  faith  in  any  of  their  predeces- 
sors. But  all  these  assumptions  are  gratuitous.  The 
text  speaks  only  of  the  transfer  of  authority  to  teach 
from  Timothy  to  others,  without  mentioning  the  precise 
mode  in  which  the  transfer  should  be  subsequently 
made.  It  is  not  even  said,  "  who  may  be  able  to  or- 
dain others  also,"  as  might  have  been  expected  if  the 
precept  were  intended  to  enforce  the  necessity  of  an 
unbroken  ministerial  succession. 

But  even  granting  that  it  does  enjoin  such  a  suc- 
cession, it  does  not  so  enjoin  it  as  to  make  it  more  es- 
sential to  the  ministry  than  many  other  things  which 
were  enjoined  by  the  Apostles  upon  their  contempo- 


150  ESSAY  VI. 

raries,  but  are  now  regarded  as  no  longer  binding.  Or 
if  this  be  conceded,  it  is  surely  arbitrary  in  the  last  de- 
gree to  make  it  obligatory  as  to  tbis  one  circumstance 
of  a  succession,  and  not  as  to  otbers  wbicb  are  mention- 
ed with  it.  There  are  four  things  included  in  the  requi- 
sition, the  continuance  of  the  office,  faith,  or  fidelity,  abil- 
ity to  teach,  identity  of  doctrine  with  that  of  the  Apos- 
tles. Now  the  adverse  argument  supposes  the  first  of 
these — and  that  not  merely  the  continuance  of  the  office, 
but  its  continuance  in  a  certain  form — to  be  rendered 
absolutely  and  for  ever  binding,  while  the  others  are  re- 
garded as  mere  secondary  circumstances.  Either  no 
such  distinction  is  admissible  between  the  parts  of  the 
command,  or  if  it  is,  it  may  be  differently  drawn.  If 
one  may  insist  upon  the  mere  succession  as  essential, 
another  may  with  equal  right  insist  upon  fidelity, 
ability,  or  soundness  in  the  faith.  This  last,  indeed, 
may  be  contended  for,  not  only  with  an  equal  but  a 
better  right,  because  the  test  of  doctrinal  conformity  is 
els.ewhere  made  essential,  which  is  not  the  case  with 
that  of  succession.  All  this  would  be  true,  even  if 
uninterrupted  succession  in  the  ministry  had  been 
expressly  mentioned  in  the  text,  whereas  it  is  found 
there  only  by  inference,  so  that  if  we  adopt  the  mean- 
ing which  the  adverse  argument  would  put  upon  the 
passage,  we  are  under  the  necessity  of  supposing  that 
which  is  not  mentioned  here,  nor  at  all  commanded 
elsewhere,  to  be  more  obligatory  than  other  things, 
which  are  particularly  named  here,  and  especially  en- 
joined elsewhere.  If  this  is  unreasonable  or  absurd, 
the  text  in  question  cannot  be  a  proof  of  the  necessity 
of  an  unbroken  ministerial  succession.  And  yet  this, 
if  not  the  only  text,  is  much  the  strongest,  that  has 


THE   APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  161 

ever  been  appealed  to,  in  support  of  tlie  position. 
There  is  no  other  which  has  even  the  appearance  of 
an  express  command  upon  the  subject. 

It  is  necessary  therefore  to  supply  the  want  of  posi- 
tive explicit  declarations,  by  the  substitution  of  analo- 
gies, for  instance  that  afforded  by  the  succession  of  the 
Jewish  Priests.  As  these  were  ministers  in  the  church 
of  God,  it  may  be  argued,  that  the  requisition  of  unin- 
terrupted succession  in  their  case  creates  a  strong 
presumption,  that  the  same  would  be  required  in  the 
Christian  ministry.  But  can  it  prove  such  succession 
to  be  absolutely  indispensable?  Such  a  conclusion 
presupposes,  1,  that  the  existence  of  succession  in  the 
old  economy  can  be  binding  upon  us  without  express 
command ;  2,  that  the  only  analogy  thus  binding  is 
that  of  the  Levitical  Priesthood ;  3,  that  the  succession 
of  the  Jewish  Priests  was  of  the  same  kind  that  is  now 
contended  for;  4,  that  in  this  Levitical  succession, 
thus  obligatory  on  us,  there  are  some  things  which  we 
may  discard  or  imitate  at  our  discretion. 

Let  us  look  at  the  ground  of  these  assumptions, 
and  first  that  we  are  bound  by  the  analogy  of  Jewish 
succession.  It  will  not  be  denied  by  either  of  the  par- 
ties to  this  controversy,  that  the  churches  of  the  old 
and  new  dispensations  were  essentially  the  same.  As 
little  will  it  be  disputed  that  in  some  points  they  were 
extremely  different,  and  that  the  differences  were  not 
arbitrary  or  fortuitous  but  characteristic.  Now  the 
grand  distinctive  features  of  the  old  dispensation  and 
of  the  church  under  it  were  its  ceremonial  forms  and 
its  restrictions;  the  stress  laid  u]3on  outward  regu- 
larity, and  the  limitation  of  the  church  to  one  small 
country  and  a  single  race.     And  as  some  parts  of  the 


152  ESSAY   VI. 

old  economy  were  intended  to  be  permanent  and  others 
temporary,  these  must  be  distinguished  by  observing 
whether  any  given  right  or  usage  bears  the  pecuhar 
iiiipress  of  the  system  which  was  done  away  in  Christ. 
Let  this  test  be  apphed  to  the  requisition  of  an  unin- 
terrupted ministerial  succession.  With  which  economy 
does  it  more  naturally  harmonize  ?  With  that  which 
was  characteristically  ceremonial,  making  spiritual  in- 
terests dependent  to  a  great  degree  upon  external 
forms,  or  with  that  in  which  the  ceremonial  element 
appears  to  be  reduced  to  its  minimum  ?  With  that  in 
which,  by  means  of  local  restrictions,  an  unbroken 
succession  might  be  easily  secured  and  promptly  veri- 
fied, or  with  that  in  which  the  abolition  of  all  national 
and  local  limitations  makes  the  application  of  the  rule 
precarious,  if  not  impossible  ?  Surely  if  any  institu- 
tion or  arrangement  can  be  said,  in  an  extraordinary 
measure,  to  require  and  presuppose  the  peculiar  cir- 
cumstances of  the  ancient  dispensation,  the  necessity 
of  uninterrupted  succession  may  be  so  described. 

But  this  is  not  the  only  consideration  which  would 
lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  ofl&cial  succession  of  the 
Jewish  constitution  was  a  temporary  rather  than  a  per- 
manent arrangement.  There  is  another  reason  which 
deserves  attention.  The  ceremonial  and  restrictive 
character  of  the  old  economy  naturally  tended  to  pro- 
duce and  foster  a  certain  spirit  of  exclusiveness  and 
overweening  attachment  to  external  circumstances. 
This  was,  in  a  certain  degree,  necessary  to  the  success- 
ful operation  of  the  system,  one  important  end  of  which 
was  to  keep  the  Jews  distinct  from  other  nations  until 
Christ  should  come.  But  when  he  did  come,  this  ne- 
cessity being  at  an  end,  the  disposition  which  before 


THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  153 

had  been  intentionally  fostered  was  discouraged  and 
denounced.  And  even  wliile  the  old  economy  sub- 
sisted, all  excess  of  the  exclusive  spirit  which  belonged 
to  it  was  checked  and  censured  in  a  manner  clearly 
showing  that  the  institutions  out  of  which  it  grew 
and  to  which  it  attached  itself  were  of  a  temporary 
nature.  Of  these  corrections  and  rebukes,  which  run 
through  all  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  we  have 
one  remarkable  example  near  the  first  introduction 
of  the  Mosaic  system,  when  seventy  elders  were  se- 
lected as  the  subjects  of  a  special  inspiration.  "And 
it  came  to  pass  that  when  the  Spirit  rested  upon  them, 
they  prophesied  and  did  not  cease.  But  there  remained 
two  of  the  men  in  the  camp,  the  name  of  the  one  was 
Eldad,  and  the  name  of  the  other  Medad,  and  the  Spirit 
rested  upon  them ;  and  they  were  of  them  that  were 
written,  but  went  not  out  unto  the  tabernacle,  and 
they  prophesied  in  the  camp.  And  there  ran  a  young 
man,  and  told  Moses,  and  said,  Eldad  and  Medad  do 
prophesy  in  the  camp.  And  Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun, 
one  of  his  young  men,  answered  and  said.  My  lord 
Moses,  forbid  them.  And  Moses  said  unto  him,  Envi- 
est  thou  for  my  sake  ?  Would  God  that  all  the  Lord's 
people  were  prophets,  and  that  the  Lord  would  put  his 
Spirit  upon  them !"  (Num.  11 :  25-29).  Here  we  are 
expressly  told  that  these  two  men  had  all  that  was 
essential.  "  They  were  of  them  that  were  written," 
i.  e.  designated  for  this  very  purpose ;  this  was  their 
external  qualification.  "  And  the  Spirit  rested  upon 
them ;"  this  was  their  internal  qualification.  Yet  sim- 
ply because  they  were  not  visibly  united  with  the  rest, 
because  they  "  went  not  out  unto  the  tabernacle  "  but 
"prophesied  in  the  camp,"  the  zealous  Joshua  would 
7* 


154  ESSAY  VI. 

have  them  silenced.  The  reply  of  Moses  seems  to 
have  been  designed  not  merely  to  check  Joshua's 
excessive  zeal  for  his  master's  personal  honour,  but  to 
point  out  the  error  of  postponing  the  highest  to  the 
lowest  evidence  of  divine  authority,  and  taking  it  for 
granted  that  God  could  not  or  would  not  grant  his 
spiritual  gifts  beyond  the  bounds  of  a  certain  tempo- 
rary organization. 

A  remarkable  parallel  to  this  instructive  incident 
occurs  in  the  New  Testament.  Even  in  the  announc- 
ing of  the  new  dispensation,  John  the  Baptist  had  inti- 
mated that  the  Jewish  prejudice  in  question  would  be 
wholly  at  variance  with  the  changed  condition  of  the 
church.  "Think  not  to  say  within  yourselves.  We 
have  Abraham  to  our  father ;  for  I  say  unto  you  that 
God  is  able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up  children  unto 
Abraham"  (Matthew  8  :  9).  And  yet  no  sooner  was  the 
body  of  apostles  organized  than  a  Judaic  spirit  of  ex- 
clusiveness  began  to  show  itself,'  a  disposition  to  regard 
external  union  with  that  body  as  a  necessary  proof  of 
authority  derived  from  Christ.  "John  answered  him 
saying.  Master,  we  saw  one  casting  out  devils  in  thy 
name,  and  he  folio weth  not  us,  and  we  forbade  him, 
because  he  followeth  not  us.  But  Jesus  said.  Forbid 
him  not,  for  there  is  no  man  which  shall  do  a  miracle 
in  my  name,  that  can  lightly  speak  evil  of  me"  (Mark 
9  :  38,  39).  Some,  indeed,  are  of  opinion  that  our  Sa- 
viour intended  to  express  disapprobation  of  the  man's 
proceeding  as  unauthorized ;  but  of  this  there  is  no 
intimation  in  his  language,  and  it  seems  to  be  directly 
contradicted  by  the  words  "  Forbid  him  not."  On  the 
contrary,  he  seems  to  teach  distinctly,  that  the  evidence 
in  this  case  of  connection  with  him  was  of  a  higher  na- 


THE   APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION.  155 

ture  than  connection  witli  his  followers,  and  derived 
directly  from  himself.  To  follow  them  was  indeed  a 
strong  presumptive  proof  that  they  who  did  it  followed 
Christ ;  but  to  work  a  miracle  in  his  name  was  a  direct 
proof  of  the  same  thing,  Christ  had  conferred  the 
power  of  casting  out  devils  on  his  personal  attendants 
and  immediate  followers.  We  do  not  read  that  he 
had  publicly  conferred  it  upon  any  others.  It  was 
natural,  therefore,  that  they  should  regard  it  as  impos- 
sible for  any  others  to  possess  it  rightfully.  But  here 
was  a  man  upon  whom  Christ  had  bestowed  it  never- 
theless, and  he  refers  them  to  the  possession  of  the 
gift  itself,  as  a  sufficient  proof  that  he  had  so  bestowed 
it.  This  he  could  not  do  without  implying  that  the 
exclusive  spirit,  which  occasioned  his  rebuke,  was 
one  belonging  to  the  temporary  system  of  the  old 
economy. 

From  this,  and  from  analogous  expressions  used 
by  Paul  in  his  epistles,  in  relation  to  the  same  con- 
tracted views,  as  well  as  from  the  intrinsic  qualities 
which  make  an  indispensable  succession  in  the  minis- 
try peculiarly  accordant  with  the  forms  and  spirit  of 
the  old  economy,  we  surely  may  infer,  that  the  analogy 
of  that  succession  cannot  be  absolutely  binding  upon 
us,  unless  enforced  by  an  express  command.  But  even 
if  the  mere  example  were  thus  binding,  its  authority 
must  of  course  extend  to  all  the  great  theocratical 
offices,  and  not  to  that  of  the  priesthood  alone,  which 
was  no  more  a  divine  institution,  and  no  more  a  type 
of  Christ's  mediatorial  character,  than  the  offices  of 
King  and  Prophet.  But  in  the  succession  of  the  Kings 
there  was  a  breach  made  very  early,  as  if  to  warn  us 
not  to  argue  from  a  uniform  custom  to  an  absolute 


156  ESSAY  VI. 

necessity.  David  was  no  less  the  successor  of  Saul  than 
Solomon  of  David ;  and  yet  in  the  latter  case  there 
was  derivative  succession,  in  the  former  not.  This,  it 
is  true,  admits  of  another  explanation ;  but  as  to  the 
Prophets,  there  appears  to  have  been  no  regular  or 
uniform  succession  in  their  office.  The  general  analogy 
of  Jewish  institutions,  then,  and  even  of  the  great  theo- 
cratical  offices,  would  lead  to  the  conclusion,  that  an 
unbroken  ministerial  succession  is  by  no  means  indis- 
pensable. Let  us  grant,  however,  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment, that  the  only  binding  analogy  is  that  of  the 
levitical  priesthood ;  it  is  not  true  that  in  it  there  was 
an  uninterrupted  derivative  succession  from  the  time 
of  Moses  to  the  time  of  Christ.  Not  to  mention  that 
the  line  of  the  succession  of  High  Priests  was  twice 
changed  during  the  period  of  the  Old  Testament 
history — which,  as  Ave  shall  see,  was  by  no  means  an 
unimportant  circumstance — ^it  is  notorious  matter  of 
history,  that  after  the  Poman  conquest,  the  derivative 
succession  of  the  Priests  was  interrupted,  and  the  ap- 
pointing power  vested  in  a  foreign  government.  And 
yet  the  High  Priests  who,  according  to  the  adverse 
doctrine,  could  not  be  legitimate  successors  of  the  ear- 
lier incumbents,  appear  to  have  been  recognized  as 
such  by  the  Apostles  and  by  Christ  himself;  for 
when  officially  adjured  by  Caiaphas,  acting  in  that 
character,  he  broke  through  the  silence  he  had  hitherto 
maintained. 

But  even  granting  that  the  levitical  succession  was 
in  these  respects  precisely  such  as  our  opponents  plead 
for,  and  that  being  such  it  binds  us  to  exact  conformi- 
ty, this  obligation  must  extend  to  every  thing  which 
necessarily  entered  into  the  levitical  succession.     But 


THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  157 

that  succession  was  liereditary,  and  must  therefore 
bind  us,  if  at  all,  to  a  hereditary  Christian  ministry. 
If  this  conclusion  be  evaded  by  alleging,  that  the 
hereditary  mode  of  derivation  was  a  secondary  cir- 
cumstance, derivative  succession  being  all  that  is  es- 
sential, then  the  same  thing  must  be  true  of  the  suc- 
cession which  is  formed  upon  the  Jewish  model ;  that 
is  to  say,  the  only  thing  essential  in  our  case  is  a  deri- 
vative succession ;  the  precise  mode  of  derivation  is 
an  accidental  circumstance.  If  so,  hereditary  succes- 
sion, though  not  necessary,  must  be  lawful,  and  if  law- 
ful entitled  to  the  preference,  because  more  ancient 
and  accordant  with  the  Jewish  model  than  the  mode 
of  ordination.  If  it  be  said,  that  G  od  has  changed  the 
mode  but  made  the  principle  still  binding,  this  as- 
sumes the  existence  of  some  exj)licit  revelation  on  the 
subject;  but  if  there  were  such  a  revelation,  there 
could  be  no  need  of  resorting  to  the  analogy  of  Jew- 
ish institutions  as  a  ground  of  obligation. 

Again,  if  one  may  arbitrarily  distinguish  between 
the  derivative  succession  as  essential,  and  the  heredi- 
tary mode  of  derivation  as  an  accident,  another  may 
with  equal  right  insist  upon  a  different  distinction,  and 
discriminate  between  a  mere  unbroken  series  or  con- 
stant occupation  of  the  office  as  essential,  and  a  deri- 
vative succession  or  the  constant  derivation  of  autho- 
rity to  each  incumbent  from  his  predecessor  as  an  acci- 
dental circumstance.  This  analogy  then  proves  either 
too  little  or  too  much,  for  it  either  leaves  the  main 
point  in  dispute  discretionary,  or  it  invalidates  all  or- 
ders not  derived  by  a  hereditary  succession  from  the 
primitive  presbyters.  This  is  the  case,  let  it  be  ob- 
served, even  after  we  have  granted  that  the  Jewish 


158  ESSAY   VI. 

succession  is  a  binding  example,  that  this  binding 
power  is  restricted  to  the  priesthood,  and  that  the  suc- 
cession of  the  priesthood  was  a  derivative  unbroken 
succession ;  all  which,  as  we  have  seen,  are  mere  gra- 
tuitous concessions. 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  the  argument  from  analo- 
gy is  no  more  conclusive  than  that  from  an  alleged 
command;  or  in  other  words,  that  the  necessity  of 
uninterrupted  succession  can  be  neither  indirectly  nor 
directly  proved  from  Scripture.  If  this  be  so  it  must 
of  course  be  fatal  to  the  adverse  doctrine,  unless  it  can 
be  shown  that  there  is  soine  inherent  necessity  for 
such  a  constitution,  independent  of  a  positive  com- 
mand, and  springing  from  the  nature  of  the  ministry 
itself  or  of  the  ends  it  was  designed  to  answer.  Now 
it  will  not  be  disputed,  that  the  end  for  which  the 
ministry  was  instituted  is  the  mahitenance  of  truth 
and  its  inseparable  adjuncts.  But  if  uninterrupted 
ministerial  succession  is  essential  to  this  end,  they 
must  always  go  together.  If  the  end  can  be  secured 
by  any  other  means,  the  necessity  of  this  means  cannot 
be  absolute.  To  say  that  a  certain'^means  is  essential 
to  a  certain  end,  and  yet  that  the  end  can  be  secured 
without  it,  is  a  contradiction.  If  then  succession  is 
essential  to  the  maintenance  of  truth,  they  must  be 
always  found  together.  But  that  teachers  of  falsehood 
and  apostates  have  been  found  in  the  line  of  the  most 
regular  succession,  under  both  dispensations,  is  an 
undisputed  and  notorious  fact.  Some  of  the  highest 
papal  authorities  admit  that  even  in  the  series  of  the 
Popes  there  have  been  heretics  and  infidels.  And 
few  perhaps  would  question  that  the  truth  has  been 
de  facto  held  and  taught  by  those  who  were  externally 


THE   APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION.  159 

irregular  and  without  authority.  The  doctrines  of  what 
is  called  the  Low  Church  are  regarded  by  some  high 
Episcopalians  as  a  serious  departure  from  the  faith ; 
and  yet  these  doctrines  are  maintained,  not  only  by 
priests  but  by  bishops  in  the  boasted  line  of  apos- 
tolical succession.  The  opposite  opinions,  on  the 
other  hand,  have  sometimes  been  espoused  by  men 
in  churches  charged  with  wanting  this  advantage,  and 
before  any  change  of  their  external  relations. 

Here  then,  according  to  the  adverse  doctrine,  is 
succession  without  truth,  and  truth  without  succession. 
The  latter  cannot,  therefore,  be  essential  to  the  ends 
for  which  the  ministry  was  founded.  The  necessity, 
if  any  such  there  be,  must  have  respect  to  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  ministry  itself.  It  may  be  argued  that 
no  positive  command  is  needed,  because  God  undoubt- 
edly designed  the  ministry  to  be  perpetual,  and  to 
this  end  an  uninterrupted  succession  is  absolutely  ne- 
cessary. If  so,  the  necessity  must  arise,  either  from 
something  peculiar  to  the  office  of  the  ministry,  as 
different  from  all  others,  or  from  something  in  the  na- 
ture of  office  in  general,  something  common  to  -this 
office  with  all  others.  Now  the  only  thing  which 
makes  the  ministry  to  differ  from  all  other  offices  is 
the  peculiar  relation  which  it  bears  to  God ;  but  this 
instead  of  making  succession  more  necessary  makes  it 
less  so.  However  indispensable  such  an  arrangement 
might  be  thought  in  human  institutions,  its  absolute 
necessity  would  seem  to  be  precluded  in  the  church, 
by  God's  perpetual  presence  and  unceasing  agency. 
And  as  to  office  generally,  that  an  unbroken  deri- 
vative succession  is  not  essential  to  its  perpetuity,  is 
very  clear  from  the  famihar  case,  before  alluded  to,  of 


160  ESSAY  VI. 

kings  and  presidents,  two  offices  whicli  surely  may  be 
equally  perpetual,  and  yet  in  one  of  them  derivative 
succession  is  entirely  wanting.  That  a  succession  of 
mere  sequence  is  essential  to  the  perpetuity  of  office, 
is  no  doubt  true;  but  to  assert  it  is  to  assert  an  identi- 
cal proposition.  It  is  merely  saying  that  in  order 
that  an  office  may  be  never  vacant,  it  must  be  always 
filled.  Since,  therefore,  a  succession  of  the  kind  in 
question  is  essential  neither  to  the  ends  for  which  the 
mi^iistry  was  instituted,  nor  to  the  perpetual  existence 
of  the  ministry  itself,  there  seems  to  be  no  original 
necessity,  arising  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  su- 
perseding the  necessity  of  positive  explicit  proof  from 
Scripture. 

If,  in  default  of  all  such  evidence,  the  necessity  of 
such  succession  is  alleged  to  rest  on  the  authority  of 
the  church,  the  question  immediately  presents  itself, 
of  what  church  ?  The  practical  use  of  the  whole  dis- 
cussion is  to  ascertain  what  is  a  true  church,  by  estab- 
lishing criteria  of  a  valid  ministry.  To  say  then  that 
the  church  requires  something  as  the  indispensable 
criterion  of  a  true  church,  is  to  reason  in  a  circle.  It 
is,  in  effect,  to  take  the  thing  for  granted,  without  any 
reason  ;  and  to  this,  irrational  as  it  may  seem,  there  is 
a  strong  disposition  on  the  part  of  many.  But  let 
them  remember  that  besides  the  unreasonableness  of 
such  a  course,  it  has  this  inconvenience,  that  it  opens 
the  door  for  an  indefinite  number  of  precisely  similar 
assumptions.  If  one  undertakes  to  say,  without  as- 
signing any  reason  or  attempting  any  proof,  that  apos- 
tolical succession,  in  the  sense  before  explained,  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  a  valid  ministry,  another  may, 
with  equal  right  and  equal  want  of  reason,  insist  upon 


THE   APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION.  161 

inspiration  or  the  power  of  working  miracles,  pre- 
tending at  the  same  time  to  possess  them.  Nor  would 
this  claim  be  chargeable  with  any  more  absurdity  than 
that  which  we  have  been  considering,  but  on  the  con- 
trary admit  of  a  more  plausible  defence.  If  for  exam- 
ple a  follower  of  Irving,  believing  himself  to  possess 
an  extraordinary  gift  of  tongues,  should  make  this  the 
indispensable  criterion  of  a  valid  ministry,  and  plead 
the  promise  of  extraordinary  powers  to  the  apostles 
and  to  those  who  should  believe,  the  actual  possession 
of  these  powers  in  the  primitive  church,  and  their  ob- 
vious utility  as  means  for  the  diffusion  of  the  gospel ; 
he  would  certainly  make  out  a  very  strong  case,  in 
comparison  with  that  of  him  who  pleads  for  the  neces- 
sity of  apostolical  succession.  The  charge  of  mere 
delusion  or  unauthorized  assumption  would  admit  of 
being  readily  and  forcibly  retorted,  and  indeed  no  ar- 
gument could  well  be  used  by  the  champions  of  suc- 
cession against  those  of  extraordinary  gifts,  except  at 
the  risk  of  having  their  own  weapons  turned  against 
themselves. 

The  same  is  true,  in  an  inferior  degree,  of  many 
other  requisitions  which  might  be  insisted  on,  if  once 
the  necessity  of  proof  could  be  dispensed  with.  There 
is  therefore  no  security  against  extravagant  and 
groundless  claims,  except  in  the  position  that  none, 
however  slight  and  seemingly  innoxious,  shall  ever  be 
admitted  without  clear  decisive  evidence,  of  which  we 
have  seen  the  one  now  under  consideration  to  be 
wholly  destitute.  On  this  safe  and  reasonable  princi- 
ple, the  failure  to  establish  the  necessity  of  apostolical 
succession,  from  the  word  of  God  or  the  nature  of  the 
ministry,  must  be  regarded  as  an  ample  vindication  of 


162  ESSAY  VI. 

our  orders  from  tlie  charge  of  invalidity.  To  make 
assurance  doubly  sure,  however,  we  may  add  to  this 
negative  view  of  the  matter  several  positive  objections 
to  the  doctrine  of  apostolical  succession,  in  the  sense 
before  repeatedly  explained. 

In  the  first  place,  it  appears  to  be  at  variance  with 
the  doctrine,  common  to  both  parties  in  thiig  contro- 
versy, that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  the  supreme  Head 
of  the  Church,  and  as  such  present  with  her  to  the  end 
of  the  world.  The  doctrine  of  succession  seems  to  rest 
upon  a  false  and  fanciful  analogy,  derived  from  human 
institutions,  where  the  founder,  being  mortal,  loses  all 
control  of  his  affairs  by  death,  and  is  thenceforth  inac- 
cessible, except  in  a  figurative  sense,  through  those 
who  have  succeeded  to  the  trust.  In  them  he  lives  as 
"  in  a  figure"  {ev  irapa/SoXy,  Heb.  11 :  19) ;  and  through 
them  his  will  is  supposed  to  be  consulted  and  complied 
with.  Now  in  such  a  case  succession  is  the  only  link 
between  the  founder  and  later  generations.  It  is  in- 
dispensable, or  may  be  so  in  certain  cases,  only 
because  nothing  can  be  substituted  for  it.  But  the 
church  of  Christ  is  no  such  corporation ;  for  its  founder, 
"though  once  dead,  is  alive  again  and  ever  liveth  to 
make  intercession  for  his  people,  and  as  Head  of  the 
Church  is  still  within  their  reach.  True,  he  uses  hu- 
mqn  intervention  in  the  government  of  his  church, 
that  is,  the  intervention  of  its  present  rulers ;  but  to 
say  that  his  communications  pass  through  all  the  links 
of  the  immense  chain  which  connects  the  church  of 
this  day  with  the  church  of  the  apostles,  is  to  say  that 
he  was  nearer  to  their  first  successors  than  he  is  to  us ; 
for  if  he  was  not,  why  must  we  resort  to  them  as  an 
organ  or  medium  of  communication  ? 


THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  163 

And  wliat  seems  especially  remarkable  is  this,  that 
some  who  plead  for  the  immediate  presence  of  our  Sa- 
viour's body  in  the  eucharist  should  deny  his  spiritual 
presence  in  the  church,  by  deriving  all  authority,  not 
from  him  directly,  or  through  those  whom  he  actually 
uses  as  his  instruments,  but  through  a  long  succession 
of  dead  men,  reaching  back  to  the  apostles,  as  if  Christ 
had  never  risen.  Thus  the  popish  doctrines  of  the 
real  presence  and  of  the  sacrament  of  orders,  by  a 
strange  juxtaposition,  go  together.  The  doctrine  of 
succession  seems  to  place  the  Saviour  at  the  end  of  a 
long  line,  in  which  the  generations  of  his  ministers 
follow  one  another,  each  at  a  greater  remove  from 
Him  than  that  which  went  before  it,  and  consequently 
needing  a  still  longer  line  to  reach  him.  But  accord- 
ing to  our  view  of  the  true  doctrine,  Christ,  as  the 
Head  of  the  Church,  may,  in  some  respects,  be  likened 
to  the  centre  of  a  circle,  and  the  successive  generations 
of  his  ministers  to  points  in  the  circumference,  at  vari- 
ous distances  from  one  another,  but  all  at  the  same 
distance  from  the  centre  of  the  system.  Through 
those  who  thus  surround  him  he  may  choose  to  act  on 
others  who  are  still  without  the  circle,  as  for  instance 
in  the  rite  of  ordination ;  but  when  this  has  brought 
them  into  the  circumference,  they  derive  their  powers 
as  directly  from  the  centre  as  if  none  had  gone  before 
them.  All  valid  powers  are  derived  from  Christ,  and 
not  from  the  apostles,  or  from  any  intervening  men 
whatever.  The  agency  of  men  in  ordination  is  a  sim- 
ple, natural  and  efficacious  method  of  perpetuating  the 
ministry  without  disorder,  recommended  by  experi- 
ence, sanctioned  by  apostolical  practice,  and  approved 
of  God,  but  not  essential  to  a  valid  ministry,  when 


164  ESSAY   VI. 

Providence  lias  made  it  either  not  at  all  attainable,  or 
only  at  the  cost  of  greater  evils  than  could  possibly  at- 
tend the  violation  of  external  uniformity. 

The  argument  thus  drawn  from  Christ's  relation  to 
the  church  may  seem  at  first  to  prove  too  much  by 
proving,  that  the  Scriptures  are  not  necessary  as  a  rule 
of  faith,  because  the  author  of  the  Scriptures  is  still 
living  and  accessible.  The  fallacy  in  this  objection 
lies  in  overlooking  two  essential  points  of  difference 
between  the  cases.  The  first  is,  that  the  word  of  God 
contains  explicit  declarations  of  its  own  exclusive  claim 
to  our  obedience,  and  denounces  curses  upon  any  who 
shall  venture  to  add  to  it  or  take  from  it ;  whereas  the 
apostles  put  in  no  such  claim  for  their  direct  suc- 
cessors, and  utter  no  anathemas  against  all  others  who 
should  claim  to  be  Christ's  ministers.  The  other  differ- 
ence is  this,  that  in  the  Scriptures  there  is  no  succes- 
sion, as  there  is  in  the  ministry.  The  Bible  of  the 
present  day  is  that  of  the  first  century,  and  claims  the 
same  respect  that  would  be  due  to  the  original  apostles 
were  they  still  alive.  This  total  want  of  corres- 
pondence in  the  circumstances  takes  off  any  force, 
which  the  objection  drawn  from  the  analogy  of  Scrip- 
ture might  have  had  against  our  argument,  that  the 
necessity  of  what  is  called  the  apostolical  succession 
supposes  Christ  to  be  no  longer  in  reahty,  but  only  in 
name  or  retrospectively  as  matter  of  history,  Head 
over  all  things  to  the  Church. 

Another  positive  objection  to  the  doctrine  is,  that 
a  different  test  of  ministerial  authority  is  expressly 
and  repeatedly  laid  down  in  Scripture.  This  is  the 
test  of  doctrinal  conformity,  as  taught  by  Paul,  in  re- 
proving the  Galatians  for  abandoning  the  doctrine  of 


THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  165 

gratuitous  salvation,  under  the  influence  of  erroneous 
teachers.  (Gal.  1 :  8,  9.)  That  these  teachers  acted 
under  the  authority  of  a  regular  external  warrant,  may 
be  inferred  not  only  from  the  improbability  that  such 
influence  could  have  been  exerted  by  private  indi- 
viduals or  self-constituted  teachers,  but  also  from  the 
form  of  Paul's  expressions — "if  I  or  an  angel  from 
heaven  " — which  imply  that  the  Galatians  might  natu- 
rally be  disposed  to  justify  their  change  by  appealing 
to  the  authority  of  those  by  whom  they  were  induced 
to  make  it.  As  if  he  had  said,  it  is  in  vain  that  you 
plead  the  apostolical  commission  and  authority  of 
these  false  teachers,  for  if  I  myself  or  an  angel  from 
heaven  preach  any  other  gospel,  let  him  be  accursed. 
His  reproof  of  the  Galatians  for  their  doctrinal  defec- 
tion necessarily  implies  that  it  might  have  been 
avoided,  by  refusing  to  receive  the  instructions  of 
their  teachers.  But  unless  he  meant  to  teach,  in  op- 
position to  his  teaching  elsewhere,  that  they  ought  not 
to  acknowledge  any  spiritual  guides  whatever,  his 
meaning  must  be  that  they  ought  to  have  applied  a 
discriminating  test  to  those  who  came  to  them  as  pub- 
lic teachers.  But  what  should  this  test  be?  The 
answer  to  the  question  is  given  in  the  words,  "though 
I,  or  an  angel  from  heaven,  preach  any  other  gospel 
unto  you  than  that  which  we  have  preached  unto  you, 
let  him  be  accursed."  The  form  of  anathema  which 
Paul  here  uses,  includes  all  possible  degrees  of  cen- 
sure ;  for  one  who  was  accursed  of  God  could  not  be 
recognized  as  a  member  of  the  true  church,  much  less  as 
possessing  authority  in  it,  or  entitled  to  the  confidence 
and  obedience  of  its  members.  The  expressions  are 
so  chosen  too  as  to  extend  to  every  class  of  persons 


166  ESSAY  VI. 

wliose  pretensions  could  at  any  time  be  called  in  ques- 
tion. He  does  not  say,  "  if  any  private  individual  or 
unauthorized  public  teacher" — he  does  not  say,  "if 
any  minister,  not  of  apostolic  rank"^ — he  does  not  say, 
"  if  any  other  apostle" — he  does  not  even  say,  "  if  any 
human  being" — but  by  mentioning  himself  and  an 
angel  from  heaven,  deliberately  cuts  off  all  claim  to 
exemption  from  the  operation  of  the  rule.  The 
standard  of  comparison  established  is  not  something 
to  be  afterwards  made  known,  but  something  notori- 
ous and  fixed  already.  He  does  not  say,  "  another 
gospel  than  that  which  we  shall  preach  hereafter" — 
he  does  not  say,  "  another  gospel  than  that  which  is 
propounded  by  the  church" — but  "any  other  gospel 
than  that  which  we  have  preached  to  you  already." 

Now  if  Paul  could  thus  appeal  to  his  oral  instruc- 
tions as  establishing  a  standard  from  which  he  had 
himself  no  right  to  swerve,  how  much  more  may  such 
a  test  be  now  insisted  on,  when  the  canon  of  Scripture 
is  complete,  and  a  curse  impending  over  any  who  shall 
venture  to  add  to  it  or  take  from  it.  If  Paul  himself, 
or  an  angel  from  heaven,  preaching  any  other  gospel 
than  the  one  which  he  had  preached  already,  must  be 
treated  as  accursed  of  God,  how  much  more  must  any 
other  mail,  departing  from  the  standard  of  true  doc- 
trine now  confirmed  and  sealed  for  ever,  be  rejected  as 
an  unauthorized  pretender  to  the  ministerial  ofl&ce, 
whatever  his  external  claims  may  be.  If  to  this  it  be 
objected  that  a  man  may  be  accursed  of  God,  and  yet 
be  entitled  to  respect  and  obedience  as  a  minister,  this 
can  be  true  only  where  the  curse  remains  a  secret,  not 
where,  as  in  the  present  case,  it  is  explicitly  revealed. 
That  Paul  when  he  says  avd^eixa  earco  does  not  speak 


THE   APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  167 

merely  of  God's  secret  purpose,  or  of  the  ultimate  per- 
dition of  false  teachers,  but  declares  tlie  duty  of  the 
church  respecting  them,  is  evident  from  the  impera- 
tive form  of  the  expression,  "  let  him  be  (treated  or 
regarded  as)  anathema;"  from  the  irrelevancy  of  » 
mere  prediction  to  the  writer's  purpose;  and  also 
from  a  parallel  passage  in  the  second  epistle  of  John, 
where  the  same  test  is  established.  "Whosoever  trans- 
gresseth,  and  abideth  not  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ, 
hath  not  God.  He  that  abideth  in  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  he  hath  both  the  Father  and  the  Son."  2  John, 
9.  This  might  seem  to  relate  merely  to  God's  personal 
favour,  without  any  bearing  upon  ministerial  authori- 
ty or  standing ;  but  such  an  explanation  is  precluded 
by  the  practical  directioijs  in  the  following  verse.  "  If 
there  come  any  unto  you,  and  bring  not  this  doctrine, 
receive  him  not  into  your  house,  neither  bid  him  God 
speed,"  much  less  submit  to  his  instructions,  or  ac- 
knowledge his  authority,  in  order  to  avoid  which  even 
social  intercourse  with  such  must  be  forborne,  "  for 
he  that  biddeth  him  God  speed  is  partaker  of  his  evil 
deeds."  2  John,  10,  11.  In  these  two  passages,  by 
different  apostles,  and  addressed  to  different  persons, 
conformity  of  doctrine  to  the  apostolic  standard  is  em- 
phatically set  forth  as  essential  to  q,  valid  ministry, 
the  want  of  which  could  be  supplied  by  no  external 
warrant  or  commission.  The  apostolical  succession, 
therefore,  in  its  purest  form  and  clearest  evidence,  can 
be  of  no  avail  without  this  doctrinal  conformity,  because 
the  church  is  bound  to  treat  not  only  the  successors 
of  apostles,  but  apostles  themselves,  and  even  angels 
from  heaven,  as  accursed  if  they  preach  another  gos- 
pel. 


168  ESSAY  VI. 

It  may  be  said,  however,  that  although  this  doc- 
trinal conformity  is  necessary,  it  is  not  sufhcient ;  that 
the  apostolical  succession  is  another  test  of  valid  min- 
istrations, and  one  equally  essential ;  that  the  rule 
*which  Paul  prescribes  to  the  Galatians  presupposes  an 
external  regularity  in  the  official  character  of  those  to 
whom  it  is  applied ;  and  that  although  it  proves  even 
apostolical  orders  to  be  worthless  without  purity  of 
doctrine,  it  does  not  prove  purity  of  doctrine  to  avail, 
apart  from  an  apostolical  commission.  But  does  not 
the  explicit  and  repeated  mention  of  the  one  condi- 
tion, as  absolutely  necessary,  without  the  least  allu- 
sion to  the  other,  in  the  very  cases  where  it  was  most 
important  to  enforce  it,  for  the  guidance  of  the  church, 
and  the  prevention  of  pernicious  misconceptions — does 
not  this  present  a  serious  objection  to  the  doctrine 
that  the  thing  thus  passed  by  sub  silentio  was  no  less 
essential  to  the  being  of  a  valid  ministry  than  that 
which  is  expressly  and  exclusively  enjoined  ?  If  the 
early  Christians  were  as  liable  to  suffer  from  the  want 
of  apostolical  authority  in  ministers  as  from  their  want 
of  orthodoxy,  why  are  they  frequently  warned  against 
the  latter,  but  against  the  former  never  ? 

This  objection  presses  with  peculiar  force  on  those 
who  look  upon  external  regularity  (including  apos- 
tolical succession)  as  the  great  security  for  truth  of 
doctrine.  If  Paul  and  John  had  thus  regarded  it, 
they  surely  would  have  urged  their  readers  to  adopt 
so  simple  and  effectual  a  safeguard,  by  submitting  to 
the  exclusive  guidance  of  a  duly  sanctioned  and  com- 
missioned ministry ;  their  failure  to  do  which  is  as 
decisive  as  a  negative  proof  can  be,  that  they  did  not 
even  think  of  apostolic  succession,  as  a  preventive  of 


THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION".  169 

the  evil  to  be  feared,  but  thought  it  necessary  to  direct 
attention  to  the  evil  itself,  as  one  with  which  the  peo- 
ple must  contend  directly,  and  from  which  they  could 
escape  unhurt  only  by  vigilance,  a  just  discrimination, 
and  a  timely  exercise  of  private  judgment.  Let  it 
moreover  be  observed,  that  the  value  of  the  apostolical 
succession,  as  contended  for,  depends  in  a  great  measure 
on  its  furnishing  a  simple  and  sufficient  method  of  de- 
termining who  are  and  who  are  not  true  ministers, 
without  the  necessity  of  seeking  other  evidence  or  ap- 
plying other  tests.  The  very  fact,  then,  that  another 
is  required  after  all,  and  that  the  worth  of  apostolical 
succession,  even  when  it  can  be  ascertained,  depends 
upon  the  doctrinal  correctness  of  the  persons  who  pos- 
sess it,  makes  it  not  indeed  impossible  but  highly  im- 
probable that  this  external  test  was  ever  meant  to  be 
essential.  The  end  to  be  obtained,  on  any  supposition, 
is  the  maintenance  of  truth,  in  the  most  comprehen- 
sive sense  of  the  expression ;  and  the  strongest  recom- 
mendation of  the  adverse  doctrine  is  that  it  appears  to 
furnish  a  convenient,  tangible,  and  efficacious  method 
of  deciding  between  different  opinions,  without  being 
under  the  necessity  of  canvassing  their  merits  in  detail. 
But  what  is  the  practical  value  of  this  method,  if  its 
apphcation  must  be  followed  by  an  inquiry  whether 
those  who  can  abide  this  test  are  apostolical  in  doctrine 
also  ?  This  is  equivalent  to  laying  down  a  rule,  that 
we  are  bound  to  receive  as  teachers  of  the  truth  all  who 
have  apostolical  commissions — provided  that  they  teach 
the  truth ! 

An  illustration  may  be  drawn  from  military  usage. 
The  design  of  countersigns  or  watchwords  in  an  army 
is  to  furnish  those  who  act  as  sentries  with  a  simple 
8 


170  ESSAY  VI. 

and  decisive  method  of  discriminating  friends  from 
foes.  But  what  if  the  officer,  in  giving  out  the  word, 
should  add  an  exhortation  to  observe  the  dress,  com- 
plexion, gait,  and  language  of  all  persons  who  present 
themselves,  and  suffer  none  to  pass  who  are  not  in 
these  respects  entirely  satisfactory  ?  Such  a  direction 
might  be  very  wise  and  necessary ;  but  it  would  cer- 
tainly destroy  the  value  of  the  simpler  test  to  which  it 
was  appended ;  for  if  even  those  who  give  the  word 
must  be  subjected  to  its  further  scrutiny,  the  only  ad" 
vantage  of  the  watchword  would  be  to  save  a  little 
unnecessary  trouble  in  a  few  rare  cases.  Another 
illustration  of  a  more  pacific  kind  is  afforded  by  the 
usage  of  some  churches  in  admitting  communicants 
to  the  Lord's  table  by  means  of  tokens,  bearing 
witness  to  the  fact  of  their  having  been  approved  by 
the  competent  authorities.  If,  in  addition  to  this  testi- 
monial, an  examination  of  the  person  were  required 
on  the  spot,  the  use  of  tokens  would  be  soon  dispensed 
with  as  an  empty  form.  It  may  be  objected  to  this  illus- 
tration, that  it  supposes  proof  to  be  required  of  the 
very  thing  which  is  attested  by  the  token ;  whereas 
apostolical  doctrine  and  apostolical  succession  are  dis- 
tinct and  independent  tests  of  ministerial  authority. 
This  is  true,  if  apostolical  succession  is  required  simply 
for  its  own  sake  or  the  sake  of  some  mysterious  influ- 
ence, actually  derived  from  the  apostles,  through  the 
line  of  their  successors,  which  we  have  seen  to  be  at 
variance  with  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  headship.  But 
if.  as  I  suppose  will  be  admitted  by  most  Protestants, 
the  apostolical  succession  is  of  value  as  securing  the 
possession  of  the  truth,  then  the  express  command  to 
judge  of  the  pretensions  of  all  ministers  directly  by  their 


THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  171 

agreement  with  the  apostolic  doctrine,  makes  it  higlily 
probable,  to  say  the  least,  that  an  indirect  method  of 
determining  the  same  thing  was  not  meant  to  be  equally 
essential  as  a  test,  the  rather  as  it  is  not  even  mention- 
ed or  referred  to,  in  connection  with  the  other. 

We  have  seen  already  that  the  doctrine  of  apostol- 
ical succession,  as  essential  to  the  ministry,  proceeds 
upon  the  supposition,  that  it  may  be  clearly  ascertained, 
and  that  it  furnishes  an  easy  and  infallible  criterion  by 
which  to  try  the  claims  of  all  professing  to  be  ministers. 
Now  if  this  were  the  case,  it  would  be  inconsistent 
with  the  whole  scheme  of  God's  providence  respecting 
his  church,  as  disclosed  in  Scripture  and  verified  by 
history.  So  far  as  his  purposes  are  thus  made  known, 
it  forms  no  part  of  them  to  place  the  church  beyond  the 
reach  of  doubt  or  the  necessity  of  caution.  There  are 
promises  of  ultimate  security  and  triumph,  but  none 
of  absolute  assurance  and  exemption  from  perplexity 
in  the  mean  time.  On  the  contrary,  the  word  of  God 
abounds  with  warnings  against  error  and  deception 
and  with  exhortations,  not  to  outward  conformity  as  a 
preventive,  but  to  watchfulness  and  diligence  and  nice 
discrimination.  Christians  are  there  taught  not  to  be- 
lieve every  spirit,  but  to  try  the  spirits  whether  they  be 
of  God ;  to  prove  all  and  hold  fast  that  which  is  good. 
1  John  4: 1.  1  Thess.  5  :  21.  "  There  must  be  here- 
sies (or  sects)  among  you,  that  they  which  are  ajoprov- 
ed  may  be  made  manifest  among  you."  1  Cor.  2  :  19. 
This  would  seem  to  be  a  very  unnecessary  discipline, 
if  the  original  organization  of  the  church  involved  a 
simpler  and  less  dangerous  method  of  attaining  the 
same  end.  With  these  intimations  of  the  Scripture 
agree  perfectly  the  facts  of  all  church  history,  as  show- 


172  ESSAY  VI. 

ing  that  fhe  means,  by  whicli  Grod  bas  been  pleased 
to  preserve  and  to  restore  the  knowledge  of  liis  truth, 
have  not  been  those  afforded  by  ecclesiastical  organi- 
zations or  implicit  faith  in  certain  teachers  as  succes- 
sors of  the  apostles,  but  others  involving  the  necessity 
of  studying  the  truth  and  searching  the  Scriptures,  as 
the  only  sovereign  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

When  considered  in  this  aspect,  the  alleged  sim- 
plicity and  perfect  certainty  of  apostolical  succession, 
in  determining  all  doubts,  without  the  troublesome  ne- 
cessity of  reasoning  or  investigation,  far  from  proving 
it  to  be  a  necessary  part  of  the  divine  economy  in  gov- 
erning the  church,  would  rather  tend  to  raise  a  strong 
presumption  that  it  formed  no  part  of  it  at  all,  because 
at  variance  with  its  other  parts  and  with  its  fundamen- 
tal principles.  And  this  presumption  is  abundantly 
confirmed  by  the  fact,  which  may  easily  be  verified, 
that  no  such  facility  or  certainty  as  that  alleged  attends 
the  process,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  whatever  it  may 
seem  to  be  in  theory,  it  always  must  in  practice  be 
uncertain  and  precarious.  Now  if  the  apostolical  suc- 
cession, as  we  have  already  seen,  is  not  explicitly 
commanded,  and  must  therefore  rest  its  claims  on  its  ne- 
cessity or  usefulness,  and  if  its  only  use  can  be  to  fur- 
nish a  criterion  of  valid  ministrations,  it  is  clear  that  want 
of  safety  and  efiiciency  in  its  application  must  destroy 
its  claims  to  be  regarded  as  a  necessary  part  of  the 
divine  economy  by  which  the  church  is  governed. 

That  God  has  suffered  apostolical  doctrine  and 
apostolical  succession  to  be  put  asunder  in  a  multi- 
tude of  cases,  and  so  changed  the  condition  of  the 
church  under  the  new  dispensation  as  to  render  it 
unspeakably  more  difficult  to  ascertain  a  ministerial 


THE  APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION.  178 

succession  than  it  was  under  the  old,  are  cogent  reasons 
for  regarding  the  hypothesis  of  its  necessity  as  contra- 
dicted by  the  providence  of  God.  And  this  leads 
directly  to  the  last  objection  which  I  shall  suggest,  to 
wit,  that  apostolical  succession,  as  a  test  of  ministerial 
authority,  is  an  impracticable  one,  and  therefore  useless. 
The  ofl&cial  pedigree  of  no  man  living  can  be  traced 
with  certainty  to  the  apostles.  This  state  of  the  case 
might  be  expected  a  priori^  from  the  very  nature  of 
the  case  itself.  That  every  link  in  the  immense  chain 
should  be  absolutely  perfect  in  itself  and  in  its  connection 
with  the  rest ;  that  no  flaw  should  exist,  in  any  instance, 
from  defect  in  the  act  of  ordination  or  the  ministerial 
rights  of  the  ordainer,  through  a  period  of  eighteen 
hundred  years  and  an  extent  of  many  nations,  must, 
if  looked  at  without  prejudice,  be  seen  to  be  an  expecta- 
tion too  extravagant  to  be  fulfilled,  without  an  extra- 
ordinary interposition  to  effect  it,  of  which  we  have 
neither  proof  nor  promise. 

The  reason  that  it  does  not  thus  strike  every  mind 
when  first  presented,  is  that  the  nature  of  the  succession 
in  question  is  apt  to  be  obscurely  or  erroneously  conceiv- 
ed. Many  assume  that  nothing  more  is  meant  by  it 
than  the  perpetual  existence  of  a  ministry  and  its 
continuance  by  ordination.  But  that  this  is  far  from 
being  the  succession  against  which  we  are  con- 
tending, is  apparent  from  the  fact  that  it  is  not  the 
test  applied  to  non-episcopal  communions.  These  are 
required  to  demonstrate  the  validity  of  their  min- 
istrations by  an  exact  deduction  of  their  orders  from 
the  first  ordainers.  That  this  should  be  possible  could 
never  be  expected  a  prioi-i.  That  it  is  not  possible, 
may  easily  be  proved  a  ;posteriori,  from  the  fact  that 


174  ESSAY  VI. 

even  under  the  most  favourable  circumstances,  -wliere 
the  line  of  the  succession  has  been  most  conspicuous, 
most  carefully  guarded,  and  attended  by  the  most 
abundant  facilities  for  verifying  facts — as  for  instance 
in  the  case  of  the  Roman  bishops — no  such  succession 
has  been  proved. 

But  apart  from  these  considerations,  the  impos- 
sibility of  proving  a  particular  succession,  in  the  case 
of  any  minister,  is  tacitly  admitted,  on  the  part  of  those 
who  claim  it,  by  evading  the  demand  for  proof,  and 
simply  alleging  the  fact  to  be  notorious.  The  case  of 
ministerial  succession  is  compared  to  that  of  natural 
descent  from  Adam  or  Noah,  which  no  man  can  prove, 
but  which  no  man  disputes.  The  fallacy  of  this  ana- 
logical argument  scarcely  needs  to  be  exposed.  The 
descent  of  any  individual  from  Adam  is  notorious  only 
on  the  supposition  that  the  whole  human  family  is 
sprung  from  a  single  pair.  This  being  assumed,  the 
other  follows  of  necessity.  If  all  descend  from  Adam, 
so  must  every  one.  To  make  the  cases  parallel,  we 
must  suppose  a  plurality  of  races,  and  a  dispute  to 
which  of  these  a  certain  individual  belongs.  In  that 
case  the  appeal  to  notoriety  would  be  absurd,  and  in  the 
absence  of  explicit  genealogies,  the  only  proof  availa- 
ble would  be  correspondence  in  the  physical  character- 
istics of  the  progenitor  and  his  alleged  descendants. 
In  the  supposed  case  this  might  be  a  difficult  and 
doubtful  process  from  the  want  of  any  accurate  and 
authentic  description  ol  the  ancestor.  But  in  the  case 
of  ministerial  descent,  we  have  the  advantage  of  a 
description  not  only  exact  but  infallible,  with  which, 
those  who  claim  to  be  successors  of  the  primitive  min- 
isters may  be  compared  with,  rigorous  exactness.    Let 


THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSIOISr.  175 

US  suppose  til  at  according  to  the  Scriptures  men  had 
sprung  from  two  distinct  originals,  and  that  these  were 
represented  as  distinguished  by  the  same  external 
marks  which  now  distinguish  Africans  from  Europe- 
ans. If  any  one  should  claim  to  be  descended  from 
either  of  these  stocks,  and  his  pretensions  were  disput- 
ed, the  nearest  approach  that  could  be  made  to  a 
solution  of  the  question,  would  be  by  comparing  the 
complexion,  features,  form,  hair,  etc.  of  the  claim- 
ant with  the  like  particulars  ascribed  in  Scripture  to 
the  father  of  the  race.  The  application  of  the  rule 
might  be  precarious,  but  without  specific  genealogies, 
no  better  proof  could  be  adduced  or  would  be  called 
for. 

This  imaginary  case  affords  a  close  analogy  to  that 
of  apostolical  succession.  Certain  bodies  of  men  claim 
to  be  exclusively  descended,  by  of&cial  derivation, 
from  the  primitive  apostles,  and  reject  the  claims  of 
others  to  a  similar  descent,  upon  the  ground  that  they 
are  not  able  to  produce  specific  proofs  of  an  unbroken 
succession :  and  when  charged  with  the  same  defect 
in  their  own  orders,  they  appeal  to  notoriety,  as  if 
there  were  no  room  to  doubt  or  question  their  extrac- 
tion. But  it  may  be  questioned  on  the  same  grounds 
upon  which  they  question  that  of  others,  and  the  only 
way  in  which  the  point  at  issue  can  be  settled  is  by  com- 
paring the  distinctive  attributes  of  those  who  now 
profess  to  have  succeeded  the  apostles  in  the  ministerial 
office,  with  the  corresponding  traits  of  the  apostles 
themselves.  By  this  test  we  are  willing  to  abide.  We 
lay  no  claim  to  apostolical  succession,  except  so  far  as 
we  agree  with  the  apostles  and  the  primitive  ministry, 
in  doctrine,  spirit,  discipline,  and  life.     And  we  con- 


176  ESSAY  YI. 

sider  our  opponents  as  reduced  to  the  necessity,  either 
of  submitting  to  the  same  test,  or  of  proving  in  detail 
their  individual  descent  from  the  apostles.  The  at- 
tempt to  substitute  for  such  proof  the  admitted  fact, 
that  the  Anglican  or  Romish  clergy  of  the  present 
day  are,  as  a  body,  the  successors  of  the  apostolic 
ministry,  is  to  evade  the  difficulty  by  confounding 
general  and  particular  succession,  by  insisting  on  the 
latter  when  our  orders  are  in  question,  and  producing 
the  former  when  their  own  commission  is  demanded. 
This  is  a  virtual  admission  of  the  fact,  which  forms 
the  ground  of  our  last  objection^  to  wit,  that  apos- 
tolical succession,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  terms,  and 
as  a  practical  test  of  valid  ministrations,  is  impracti- 
cable and  therefore  useless. 

If  then,  as  we  have  tried  to  show,  this  doctrine  is 
not  only  unsupported  by  express  command  and  binding 
example,  and  by  any  necessity  arising  from  the  nature 
of  the  ministerial  office,  or  the  ends  for  which  it  was 
established,  but  at  variance  with  the  doctrine  of  Christ's 
headship,  superseded  by  the  surer  test  of  doctrinal 
conformity  to  apostolic  teachings,  contradicted  by  the 
providence  of  God,  and  practically  useless  even  to  its 
advocates ;  it  is  not  perhaps  too  bold  an  inference  from 
these  considerations,  that  an  incapacity  to  trace  our 
ministerial  authority  in  regular  succession,  step  by 
step,  to  the  apostles,  is  no  conclusive  argument,  nor 
even  a  presumptive  one,  against  the  validity  of  Pres- 
byterian orders.  Here  we  might  safely  rest  the  defence 
of  our  ministrations  against  all  attacks  connected  with 
this  point  of  apostolical  succession;  but  we  cannot  do 
j  ustice  to  the  strength  of  our  position,  without  exhibiting 
the  subject  in  another  point  of  view.  We  have  endeavour- 


THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  177 

ed  to  show,  tliat  the  apostolical  succession,  which  we  are 
accused  of  wanting,  is  not  essential  to  a  valid  ministry. 
This  would  suffice  to  justify  our  claims,  even  on  the 
supposition  that  our  opponents  possess  in  the  highest 
degree  what  they  demand  of  us,  and  that  we,  on  the 
other  hand,  are  utterly  without  it.  But  we  have  fur- 
thermore seen  reason  to  believe  that  our  opponents  have 
it  in  a  much  more  limited  degree  than  that  which  they 
require  of  others.  This,  in  addition  to  the  unessential 
character  of  the  advantage,  would  at  least  have  the 
effect  of  bringing  us  nearer  to  a  level  with  our  neigh- 
bours, still  supposing  apostolical  succession  in  the 
ministerial  office  to  be  altogether  wanting  upon  our  part. 
But  even  this  residuary  difference  between  us,  with 
respect  to  the  validity  of  our  pretensions,  disappears 
when  it  is  known  that,  so  far  as  apostolical  succession 
can  be  verified,  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  possesses  it,  as  really  and  fully  as  the  Church 
of  England.  In  making  this  assertion,  as  in  all  the 
reasonings  of  the  present  essay,  we  assume  as  proved 
already,  that  a  superior  order  in  the  ministry  to  that 
of  presbyters  is  not  essential  to  the  being  of  the 
church,  but  that  from  the  beginning  presbyters  have 
exercised  the  highest  powers  now  belonging  to  the 
ministry.  If  so,  it  is  through  them  that  the  apostolical 
succession  must  be  traced,  and  we  accordingly  main- 
tain that  our  orders  may  be  just  as  surely  traced  in 
this  way  up  to  apostolic  times,  as  those  of  any  other 
church  through  bishops.  The  denial  of  this  fact  has, 
for  the  most  part,  been  connected  with  the  false  as- 
sumption that  the  ministry  of  our  church  has  been 
derived  from  that  of  Geneva,  and  depends  for  its 
validity    on    the    ministerial    authority    of   Calvin ; 


178  ESSAY  VI. 

whereas  we  trace  our  orders,  througli  the  original 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  to  the  mother-church  of 
Scotland,  which  is  well  known  to  have  been  reformed 
with  the  concurrence  and  assistance  of  men  regularly 
ordained  in  the  church  of  Eome.  The  principal 
admixture  of  this  Scottish  element,  in  our  earliest 
presbyteries,  was  with  New  England  Puritans,  among 
whom  only  two  examples  of  lay-ordination  are  believ- 
ed to  have  occurred,  and  whose  ecclesiastical  system 
was  orignally  founded  by  regularly  ordained  priests  of 
the  Anglican  establishment.  The  proportion  of  those 
members,  in  our  primitive  church-courts,  whose 
ordination  was  derived  from  more  obscure  and  doubtful 
sources,  such  as  the  Welsh  and  English  Independents, 
was  extremely  small.  Whatever  then  a  regular 
succession  may  be  worth,  we  can  lay  claim  to  it  as  far 
back  and  as  certainly  as  any  of  our  adversaries. 

This  fact  is  indeed  so  "  notorious,"  that  it  has  been 
met,  for  the  most  part,  not  with  a  denial  of  the  fact 
itself,  but  with  an  allegation,  that  the  only  apostolical 
succession  in  existence  is  derived  through  Bishops,  as 
superior  to  Presbyters.  It  is  the  need  of  something 
to  destroy  the  force  of  presbyterial  succession,  as  a 
fact  which  cannot  be  denied,  that  has  occasioned  the 
perpetual  and  almost  universal  combination  of  the 
doctrine  of  succession  with  the  doctrine  of  episcopacy, 
as  alike  essential  to  the  organization  of  the  church. 
We  have  ventured,  however,  to  discuss  them  separate- 
ly, and  have  thus  been  led  to  the  conclusion,  that  the 
highest  powers  of  the  church  belong  to  Presbyters  as 
such ;  that  succession,  if  derived  at  all,  must  be  deriv- 
ed through  them ;  and  that  through  them  we  possess 
it  no  less  certainly  and  fully  than  the  church  of  England 


THE  APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION,  179 

or  the  cliurcli  of  Eome.  We  cannot  indeed  show 
that  every  link  in  the  long  chain  has  been  without  a 
flaw,  but  neither  can  our  adversaries  do  so  upon  their 
part.  Until  the  Reformation  the  two  lines  are  coin- 
cident, and  since  that  time,  the  continuation  of  the 
series  of  Presbyters,  in  Scotland,  England,  Ireland, 
and  America,  is  as  certain  and  notorious  as  that  of 
Bishops.  Supposing  then,  as  we  of  course  do,  that 
the  rank  which  we  have  claimed  for  Presbyters  is 
justly  due  to  them,  it  follows  necessarily,  that  no  ob- 
jection to  the  validity  of  Presbyterian  orders  can  be 
founded  on  the  want  of  apostolical  succession ;  partly  be- 
cause it  is  not  absolutely  necessary,  partly  because  we 
are  as  really  possessed  of  it  as  any  other  ministers 
or  church  whatever.  When  any  urge  this  argument 
against  our  ministrations,  they  assume  two  facts,  both 
essential  to  the  truth  of  their  conclusion ;  first,  that 
such  succession  is  of  absolute  necessity,  and  secondly; 
that  they  alone  possess  it.  If  either  of  these  as- 
sumptions is  unfounded,  it  destroys  the  argument ;  for 
if  succession  is  not  necessary,  it  matters  little  who  has 
or  has  it  not ;  and  if  on  the  other  hand  we  have  as 
much  of  it  as  our  opponents,  they  can  have  no  pretext 
for  impugning  the  validity  of  our  ministrations.  By 
disproving  either  of  those  two  positions,  the  conclusion 
is  destroyed.  By  disproving  both,  it  is  doubly  destroy- 
ed, "  twice  dead,  plucked  up  by  the  roots." 


THE    END. 


!'''lflnilli''ll'lM'l'"'  Sem.nary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01021   6671 


J 


